mcp_opendaw_list_instrument_params

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the return content: instrument type, parameters with values, units, and constraints. It also lists compatible instruments, providing context not in 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, front-loading the purpose and then covering parameter, return value, and compatible instruments in a single, well-structured paragraph with no redundancy.

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 single parameter and existing output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains the parameter, specifies return content, and lists compatible instrument types.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the unit_index parameter's meaning and domain (-1 for auto-detect). It also adds context about supported instrument types.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'parameters of the instrument connected to an audio unit'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_effect_parameters and list_midi_effect_params by specifying 'instrument' parameters. The parameter unit_index is defined with auto-detect logic.

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 unit_index parameter, including the sentinel value -1 for auto-detection, and lists compatible instruments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings.

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