mcp_opendaw_list_warp_markers

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

The description correctly indicates a read-only operation (list) consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It details the return value (warp marker list with position, seconds, isAnchor) and the edge case (empty if no stretch mode), providing full behavioral transparency.

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: purpose, background, parameters, return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameters, return behavior, and edge case. It is fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter (unit_index, track_index, region_index) with brief descriptions. While not exhaustive, it adds meaningful context beyond the schema's empty descriptions.

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 warp markers on time-stretched or pitch-stretched audio regions, with a distinct verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_warp_marker, delete_warp_marker, and update_warp_marker by focusing on listing.

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 that the tool is used for tempo-matching audio regions, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it. Alternatives like get_region_info are not mentioned, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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