mcp_opendaw_identify_chords

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately explains the algorithm: reads notes, groups by temporal overlap, matches pitch-class sets. It informs that the tool returns chord lists with time, root, type, and confidence, and describes parameter effects (e.g., group_tolerance, min_notes). Slight omission of project-state implications (read-only).

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 well-structured with a summary line, process explanation, use cases, and parameter list. It is relatively concise given the amount of information, though slightly verbose in the algorithm section.

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 complexity, 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers input explanation, process, and output. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., empty region, identical chords), but provides sufficient context for typical use.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the description with clear explanations beyond the schema's type/default: unit_index and track_index as indices, region_index with -1 meaning first, group_tolerance explained with musical context (16th note), min_notes with a triad example. This compensates fully for 0% schema coverage.

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 begins with 'Identify chords from existing notes in a region — harmonic analysis / reverse engineering,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling analysis tools by focusing on chord identification from note regions, explaining the grouping and matching process.

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?

Lists clear use cases: understanding imported MIDI, analyzing AI-generated progressions, reverse-engineering harmony, verifying chords. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the contexts are specific and helpful for an AI agent.

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