mcp_opendaw_measure_lufs

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the algorithm (ITU-R BS.1770-4 simplified), the measurement steps (K-weighting, gating), and the specific return values (LUFS, true peak, max sample, duration). This goes beyond typical descriptions.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by algorithm details, parameter explanation, and return values. However, the algorithm details (e.g., K-weighting coefficients, gate threshold) may be excessive for an AI agent and could be streamlined for better conciseness.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema but return values listed), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, how it works, what input it needs, and what output to expect. No gaps remain.

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 input schema has one parameter (filename) with no description. The tool description adds critical context: 'Name of the WAV file in the exports directory (without path).' This clarifies the file location and format, which is not evident from the schema alone. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 measures LUFS (integrated) and true peak of an exported WAV file, with a specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('WAV file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools (e.g., analyze_dynamics, analyze_mix) by focusing on loudness metrics per ITU-R standard.

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 provides algorithm details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., file must be exported first) or exclusions (e.g., not for real-time monitoring). Usage context is only implied by the description.

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