mcp_opendaw_get_bar_interval

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's role is to add behavioral detail. It states the return values ('bar_start, bar_end, bar_length, and time signature'), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not mention any side effects or contradictions. The description aligns with the read-only nature and adds transparency about the output.

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 (three sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states the core function, second gives usage context, third details parameter and return. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple query tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter explanation, and return values. The tool's complexity is low, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'position_ppqn' is explained as 'Position in PPQN', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should provide more context, such as expected range or format. Without that, the agent must infer what PPQN values are valid. The description adds little value here.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the start and end PPQN of the bar containing the given position.' This is a specific verb-resource combination. It also mentions a use case ('snapping regions, clips, and events to bar boundaries'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like mcp_opendaw_get_tempo_at or mcp_opendaw_get_region_info that also provide positional 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 explicitly suggests when to use the tool: 'Useful for snapping regions, clips, and events to bar boundaries.' This provides clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which would have warranted a 5. The usage guidance is implied rather than exhaustive.

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