mcp_opendaw_list_modular_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by specifying the output fields (AU index, label, module/connection counts). No contradictions. Could mention if the list is always available given project state, but not necessary.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by output details and a definition of 'Modular'. Every sentence adds meaning without 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 tool has no parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema (exists), the description provides sufficient context: what it lists, return fields, and domain definition. No gaps.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. No parameter information needed. The schema coverage is 100% (empty), and the description does not need to compensate.

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 action (list) and the resource (modular audio effect devices). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_modular_connections and list_modular_modules by focusing on devices themselves. The additional context explaining 'Modular' clarifies the domain.

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 provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, for a simple listing tool with no parameters, usage is straightforward. No alternatives are mentioned, but the description is self-explanatory.

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