mcp_opendaw_list_vaporisateur_params

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds the return structure and auto-detect behavior, but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid unit index) or performance implications. Beyond annotations, it provides moderate behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and uses bullet points for return fields. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple single-parameter schema and the described return structure, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and output fields. Minor missing details: error handling for auto-detect failure or invalid indices, but overall sufficient for a read 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% for the unit_index parameter. The description fully compensates by explaining its meaning ('Audio unit index (-1 = auto-detect Vaporisateur)'), which is essential for correct tool usage.

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 retrieves the full Vaporisateur synthesizer state, listing included components (oscillators, LFO, noise, main params). It is specific to Vaporisateur and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_vaporisateur_osc_param (which sets a parameter) and list_instrument_params (generic).

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 explains the unit_index parameter with auto-detect behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide when-not guidance. The context implies usage for retrieving Vaporisateur state, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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