mcp_opendaw_analyze_spectrum

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares it as a safe read operation. The description adds substantial context: input requirements (WAV file in exports directory or absolute path), the exact return content (band-by-band analysis, global descriptors, mix suggestions), and semantics of each metric (e.g., spectral_centroid as brightness). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with a clear opening line, bullet-point frequency bands, metric definitions, and usage examples. The length is justified by the density of useful information; every sentence contributes value, and critical information (purpose, workflow, args) is front-loaded.

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?

Covers input expectations, output content (band-by-band analysis, global descriptors, mix suggestions), and interpretation guidance. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail exact return types, but it provides sufficient context for correct invocation and result usage.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates with the Args section: 'filename: Name of the WAV file in the exports directory (without path), or absolute path to any WAV file.' This precisely specifies the single parameter's format and acceptable values, going beyond the bare schema definition.

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's purpose: 'Spectral analysis of audio across 7 ISO frequency bands' followed by detailed band definitions and metrics. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_stereo, analyze_dynamics, and analyze_mix by focusing specifically on spectrum analysis.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use after analyze_track for mix decisions' and gives concrete interpretation rules (e.g., high low_high_ratio → bass-heavy mix, low spectral_centroid → dark/muffled). This tells the agent when to invoke the tool and how to act on the results.

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