mcp_opendaw_get_audio_file_info

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing specific return fields (file name, start/end time, sample loading state) and explicitly noting that it returns an error on failure. It does not contradict annotations and appropriately conveys a side-effect-free inspection behavior.

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 adequately sized but contains redundancy: 'Returns file name, start/end time in seconds...' is followed by 'Returns audio file info, or error.' The parameter lines are clean and front-loaded, but the repeated 'Returns' wastes a sentence. Overall structure is acceptable but not tight.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, and return value summary. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not required. It is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup, though it lacks explicit guidance on how to obtain the indices (e.g., via list_tracks), which is minor.

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 0% schema description coverage, the descriptions for unit_index, track_index, and region_index are essential and clearly explain the hierarchical addressing (AU / track / region). They provide enough meaning beyond the property names to guide correct usage, though they are minimal.

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 function: 'Get metadata about the audio file referenced by an audio region.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('audio file metadata'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_region_info or get_sample_info by focusing on the audio file behind an audio region. The returned data (file name, times, sample loading state) reinforces the 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 line 'Useful for inspecting audio regions before processing' gives clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only intent is implied by the readOnlyHint annotation and the 'before processing' phrasing.

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