mcp_opendaw_get_device_chain_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's read-only nature is consistent. It adds behavioral context: it's a single call that returns arrays for instrument, audio effects, and MIDI effects. No additional disclosures about performance, errors, or edge cases are provided.

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: four short sentences that front-load the purpose, detail the output, explain the parameter, and state the return structure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values exhaustively. It lists the key components (instrument info, audio_effect array, midi_effect array) and the attributes per effect. The sole parameter is fully explained, making the tool description self-sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that 'unit_index' is the AU index, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Unit Index' title. This helps the agent understand what value to provide.

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 it retrieves detailed info about all devices on an AU, covering instrument, audio effects, and MIDI effects. It lists specific returned fields (labels, enabled state, minimized state, parameter counts), distinguishing it from siblings like get_effect_chain or get_midi_effect_chain that focus on a subset.

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 when to use it—when you need the full device chain in one call. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear. Siblings like get_effect_chain exist, but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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