mcp_opendaw_list_genre_profiles

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing what each profile contains (LUFS, spectral balance, stereo width, dynamic range). This informs the agent about the output without contradicting 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 short paragraphs, each adding value: purpose, content detail, and usage guidance. No extraneous information; perfectly 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 absence of parameters and the presence of readOnlyHint and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and the nature of its return values. It references a sibling for further action, making it contextually complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no additional semantics are needed. The description implicitly covers the purpose, meeting the baseline expectation for no-param tools.

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 explicitly states 'List all available genre reference profiles for mix analysis', providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like compare_to_profile(), which uses these profiles.

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 clear guidance by stating 'Use compare_to_profile() to check your mix against any of these', telling the agent when to use this tool vs. the sibling. It implies a prerequisite: list profiles before comparing.

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