mcp_opendaw_list_effect_parameters

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating the tool is read-only. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns parameter names, current values, units, and ranges, which goes beyond the annotations' information.

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 a clear single-sentence purpose followed by parameter explanations and return value summary. No superfluous text; each sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the essential information: purpose, parameter meanings, and return content. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete. It does not discuss error conditions, but that is acceptable for a list operation.

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 description provides full semantic meaning for both parameters: unit_index described as 'Audio unit index' and effect_index as 'Effect position in the chain (0-based, from add_effect return)'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 all parameters of an effect on an audio unit. It specifies the action (list) and resource (parameters of an effect), and distinguishes from siblings like list_effects (which lists effects) by explicitly focusing on parameters.

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 the parameters (unit_index and effect_index) with clear guidance on effect_index being zero-based and from add_effect return. While it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other effect parameter tools, the context is clear enough for typical use.

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