mcp_opendaw_list_automation_events_detail

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint' already marks the tool as read-only. The description adds behavioral context by noting the return includes 'positions in beats' and 'interpolation details'. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool provides beyond the annotation.

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 about five sentences, front-loading the purpose and key differentiator. It is clear and without fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown but present) and read-only annotation, the description covers the purpose, a sibling comparison, parameter meanings, and return structure. It is fairly complete for a list tool with two parameters, though it omits details like ordering or result limits (likely covered by output schema).

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% (no descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations: 'unit_index: AU index' and 'track_index: Value (automation) track index'. This adds basic meaning beyond property names but lacks details like valid ranges or format. With 0% coverage, a score of 3 reflects minimal but present compensation.

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 the tool lists automation events on a value track with full detail including position, value, and interpolation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_automation_events' by explicitly stating it includes interpolation type and curve slope, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear comparative guideline: 'More detailed than list_automation_events' indicates when to use this tool versus the sibling. It also explains the two required parameters. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' caveats, the comparative guidance is sufficient.

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