mcp_opendaw_get_effect_state

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a 'complete effect state snapshot' including enabled/bypass, minimized, sidechain, and parameters. This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, but does not reveal any potential performance or rate-limiting 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 extremely concise: two sentences summarizing purpose and differentiation, plus logical parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without 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 the presence of an output schema, the description accurately summarizes the return without detail. It also fully documents the parameters and provides sibling differentiation, making the tool self-contained for selection.

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 description explains both parameters ('unit_index' and 'effect_index') with concise, meaningful definitions. Since the schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates by clarifying the index meanings.

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 gets the 'full state of an effect' and lists specific components (enabled, minimized, sidechain, all parameters). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'list_effect_parameters' by stating it is more detailed.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool over its sibling (when more detail is needed than list_effect_parameters). However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools.

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