mcp_opendaw_list_tempo_changes

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read. Description adds context about normalized values and mapping, but doesn't disclose potential limitations (e.g., event count, performance). Incremental value beyond annotations is moderate.

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?

Two precise sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters and presence of output schema, description provides necessary detail (returned fields, mapping). Could mention ordering or scope (entire project), but sufficient for a simple 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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% by default. Description explains output fields and mapping, adding value beyond schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it lists tempo changes on the timeline's tempo track, specifying returned data (position, BPM, interpolation type). Distinguishes from siblings like add_tempo_change (write) and get_tempo_at (single point).

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?

Implicitly indicates usage for retrieving existing tempo events, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get_tempo_at, list_signature_changes). Lacks when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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