mcp_opendaw_list_audio_regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description confirms listing behavior and adds context about returned fields. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance, error handling) are disclosed, but the read-only nature is clear.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, followed by parameter descriptions, then return fields. It is front-loaded and uses clear formatting.

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 simple input schema (2 params) and existence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what the tool does, what parameters mean, and what fields are returned. It lacks detail on edge cases or order, but is adequate 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters, including the special value -1 for track_index. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists audio regions with specific fields. It explains parameters and return values, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_clips or get_region_info.

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 explains parameters and the special meaning of track_index=-1 for all tracks. It implies usage for querying audio regions but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other tools.

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