mcp_opendaw_list_clips

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains clip types, properties returned (type, index, duration, mute, label, loop), and parameter behavior. No contradiction 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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose statement, followed by clip type details, parameter explanations, and return list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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, the description covers what the tool does, parameter meanings, and return fields. It is complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke 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?

The input schema provides only titles with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index is 'Audio unit index' and track_index is 'Track index (-1 = all tracks on the unit).' This adds essential meaning for correct invocation.

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's purpose: 'List clips (session view / clip launcher) on tracks.' It specifies the three clip types and their properties, making the resource and verb unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tracks or list_notes.

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 explicit parameter explanations, including the special case of track_index = -1 for all tracks. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though the context is clear for listing clips.

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