mcp_opendaw_get_tempo_at

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 that it 'account[s] for tempo automation' and returns 'BPM at that position, or error,' which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations but does not cover edge cases or state dependencies.

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), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential input and output. It could briefly mention position validity (e.g., within project range) but is otherwise 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter description ('position_beats: Position in beats (float)') meaningfully adds units and type information that the schema lacks, helping the agent understand the expected input.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get the BPM at a specific position') and the resource ('BPM'), and distinguishes itself by accounting for tempo automation, which differentiates it from sibling tools like mcp_opendaw_get_project_info or mcp_opendaw_list_tempo_changes.

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 this tool (when you need BPM at a specific position considering automation) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is adequate but lacks clear exclusions.

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