mcp_opendaw_evaluate_raw

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

The description says 'Execute arbitrary JavaScript in the DAW V8 context,' which implies full access to potentially destructive operations, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: the tool may not be read-only. The description does add useful context about script wrapping and access to globals, but the contradiction forces a score of 1 per the rules.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use-case context and a clearly labeled parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 high complexity (arbitrary JS execution) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, script format, and available globals. It lacks explicit warnings about side effects or error handling, but the 'power users and debugging' framing partially covers the risk. The annotation contradiction is a separate issue, so this dimension remains at a 4.

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 schema provides only a 'script' string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that the script must be a function body wrapped in an async arrow, and that it has access to window.DAW and DAW_ globals. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of examples or edge cases.

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 and resource: 'Execute arbitrary JavaScript in the DAW V8 context and return the result.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from musical/DAW operation siblings by emphasizing arbitrary script execution. The intended use case (power users and debugging) further clarifies its purpose.

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 context for when to use the tool ('For power users and debugging — explore openDAW internals directly'), which implies it is for low-level inspections not covered by higher-level tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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