mcp_opendaw_capture_realtime

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return behavior ('Returns file path and size'), error conditions ('or error if engine not running'), and a filename constraint ('without extension'). It could also mention side effects (e.g., whether a region is placed in the project), but the disclosed traits are meaningful.

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: first line states the purpose, followed by usage context, then parameter details, then return/error behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or 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?

For a two-parameter capture tool, the description covers the what, when, prerequisite, parameter semantics, and return format. It omits explicit alternative tool comparisons and potential side effects like whether an audio region is added to the project, but given the output schema exists and the tool is simple, it is reasonably complete.

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 descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with type and example: 'duration_seconds: How long to record (float, e.g. 10.0)' and 'filename: Output WAV filename (without extension).' This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 states a specific verb+resource+method: 'Capture realtime audio output from the DAW engine' and clarifies it records live playback with effects and automation. This clearly distinguishes it from offline render/export tools like render_range or export_mix.

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 clear context and a prerequisite: 'The engine must be running (call start_engine first).' Also states when it's useful (live playback, effects, automation). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for offline rendering use render_range'), so not a 5.

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