mcp_opendaw_list_modular_modules

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds detail on the specific fields returned (type, label, x/y, inputs, outputs, parameter values) and known module types, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, then parameter descriptions, then return fields and types. Every sentence adds value, and key information is 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description adds context about module types and the kind of data returned. It could mention error cases or prerequisites (e.g., device must be a Modular device), but overall is fairly complete for a listing tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'au_index' as 'Audio unit index' and 'effect_index' as 'Effect index within the AU', adding meaning beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it does not specify how to obtain these indices (e.g., via list_modular_devices).

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 resource 'modules in a Modular device'. It specifies what is returned (type, label, x/y position, inputs, outputs, parameter values) and lists module types. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_modular_devices' and 'add_modular_module'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_modular_devices', 'add_modular_module'). It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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