mcp_opendaw_get_note_range

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing specific return fields (min_pitch, max_pitch, max_duration_beats, note_count) and error possibility, confirming no destructive 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 (3 sentences plus parameter definitions) with a clear structure: action, returns, then parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 tool's low complexity (3 simple parameters, an existing output schema hinted by 'Returns'), the description covers the purpose, return values, and parameter meanings completely. The mention of 'or error' handles edge cases.

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 providing a brief explanation for each of the 3 parameters: unit_index, track_index, region_index. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 gets pitch range and max duration of notes in a note region, specifying return values (min pitch, max pitch, longest note duration) and use cases. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on range rather than listing all notes or statistics, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives context for use: 'useful for determining the vocal/instrument range and planning transpose operations.' However, it does not specify when not to use this tool versus similar ones like list_notes or note_stats, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions.

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