mcp_opendaw_list_modular_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it lists connections and returns source/target info. It does not detail permissions, side effects, or constraints.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for parameters and one for output. Every line adds value 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 simple read-only nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks error scenarios or what happens with invalid indices, but is sufficient for basic use.

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% so description must explain parameters. It does: 'au_index: Audio unit index. effect_index: Effect index within the AU.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it lacks format or boundary details.

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 'List all connections (patch cables) in a Modular device.' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect_modular_modules' (write) and 'list_modular_devices' (list devices).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for inspecting connections before connecting, but provides no exclusions or context for selection among siblings.

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