mcp_opendaw_list_automatable_fields

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

The annotation indicates readOnlyHint=true, and the description reaffirms a read-only behavior by stating 'List' and 'Shows'. It adds behavioral details such as returning field names, current values, and automatable status, and explains the parameters. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with three focused sentences: purpose, key behavior note, and parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return values (field names, current values, automatable flag). The description is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It explains unit_index as 'Audio unit index containing the instrument' and sample_index as 'For Playfield, which sample slot (-1 = top-level instrument)', adding clear semantics 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?

The description clearly states 'List all automatable parameter fields on an instrument (or specific Playfield sample)' and specifies that it shows fields supporting 'Pointers.Automation'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_effect_parameters and list_instrument_params, which likely list all parameters without the automation filter.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for discovering automatable fields before applying automation, but does not provide direct guidance on when not to use it or mention specific sibling tools. The context is moderately clear.

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