mcp_opendaw_analyze_phase

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the specific phase checks performed, the rationale (mono compatibility), frequency-dependent risks, and what the return value contains. This is genuinely useful information that helps an agent interpret results safely.

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 tightly structured: a one-line summary, bulleted list of checks, two lines on frequency context, and a final parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it detects, how to specify the input, and what the result is about. The output schema handles the exact return format, so no additional detail is needed.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the filename parameter in detail: 'WAV file in exports dir, or absolute path.' This is essential guidance that turns an otherwise opaque string parameter into a usable one.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Per-band phase analysis — coherence, polarity, inter-channel delay.' It then lists concrete checks and the final output (mono compatibility score), clearly distinguishing this from sibling analysis tools like analyze_stereo or analyze_spectrum.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool by explaining what problems it detects (phase issues that damage mono compatibility) and provides contextual guidance about low vs. high frequency behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool.

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