mcp_opendaw_analyze_song_structure

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently presents this as a read-only analysis operation, so no contradiction. It adds behavioral detail beyond the annotation: the algorithm (scans bar-by-bar, computes features, groups consecutive bars, classifies segments) and the output structure (per-segment classification with bar range, density, energy, feature summary). This is useful context, though it could also mention edge cases or data requirements.

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 opening, algorithmic overview, use-case list, and parameter breakdown. It is somewhat long (multiple paragraphs), but each section adds value and the information is front-loaded. A tighter version could combine the algorithm and use cases, but the current format is readable and effective.

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 moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, the algorithm, the parameters, the output type, and typical use cases. It does not need to describe return values in detail because an output schema exists. The description fully equips an agent to decide when and how to call this 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%, so the description must carry the burden. It does: 'unit_index: AU index (-1 = all AUs)' and 'bars_per_segment: Minimum bars per structural segment (default 4)...' This adds meaning beyond the plain integer types and defaults in the schema. It could be richer (e.g., valid ranges for unit_index) but is adequate.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Analyze song structure by segmenting MIDI content into structural parts.' It details the method (bar-by-bar feature extraction, grouping, classification into intro/verse/chorus/etc.), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on analysis and structural segmentation, not creation or editing.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Essential for: understanding existing arrangements, finding where sections change, verifying song form, and planning variations or extensions.' This gives clear context on when to use. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or contrast with alternative analysis/creation tools, so it misses the 'when-not' part for a full 5.

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