mcp_opendaw_get_audio_file_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the list of returned fields and states it returns 'error' on failure, but lacks deeper behavioral details like error conditions or performance implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, starting with the purpose, then return fields, then parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, though the parameter descriptions are embedded in prose rather than structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameters, return values, and basic usage. Lacks detail on error handling but sufficient for a simple read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters (unit_index, track_index, region_index) with clear definitions, adding significant meaning beyond the bare integer types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get metadata about the audio file referenced by an audio region' and lists specific return fields (file name, start/end time, sample loading state), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_region_info or get_sample_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'Useful for inspecting audio regions before processing,' providing some context but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.