mcp_opendaw_get_automation_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining that it resolves the automation curve, accounting for interpolation, region loops, and multiple overlapping regions. It also states the normalized value range (0.0-1.0). This goes beyond the annotations to clarify behavior.

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 with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, a second paragraph adding behavioral detail, and a third paragraph listing parameters. It is front-loaded and fairly efficient, though the parameter list could be integrated into a bullet format for even easier scanning.

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?

For a read-only get tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: resolving the curve, handling interpolation/loops/overlaps, and returning a normalized value. It could mention what happens if the position is out of bounds or the track doesn't exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden. It briefly explains each parameter: 'unit_index: AU index', 'track_index: Value (automation) track index within the AU', 'position_beats: Position in beats (float)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's names and types, though could include valid ranges or units.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'automation value at a specific position on a value (automation) track'. It explains that it resolves the curve accounting for interpolation, loops, and overlapping regions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_automation_events (which lists events) or set_automation (which writes).

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 implies the tool is for reading automation values at a point, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_automation_events or other get tools. No when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons are provided.

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