mcp_opendaw_list_samples

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

The description adds scope (all audio file samples) and output details (UUIDs and metadata) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, for a read-only list tool, the annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description adds modest value. No contradictions with 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant or extraneous words.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It mentions the return of UUIDs and metadata, which is complete for a list operation.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description correctly implies no input needed, which is sufficient. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters.

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 tool lists all audio file samples in the project and returns UUIDs and metadata. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('audio file samples'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools that target other entities (e.g., list_notes, list_tracks).

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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