mcp_opendaw_list_sends

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read-only operation. Additionally, it specifies the return fields (send_index, target_bus_name, send_level_db, routing), providing behavioral detail beyond the annotation.

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: three short lines covering purpose, parameter, and return fields. No redundant information, ideal for quick parsing by an AI.

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?

With a simple read-only operation and one parameter, the description is largely complete. It covers the return format explicitly. No major gaps, though it could mention that the operation is safe (covered by annotation).

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?

The single parameter `unit_index` is explained as 'Audio unit index to inspect,' adding clear meaning beyond the raw schema (integer type). This helps the agent understand what value to provide.

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 states 'List all aux sends on an audio unit,' clearly specifying the verb (list), resource (aux sends), and scope (on an audio unit). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_send or remove_send, which are for modification.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is for inspection, but does not mention when not to use or compare to other list tools like list_audio_buses. However, the purpose is straightforward.

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