mcp_opendaw_get_automation_value

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already flags this as read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it resolves the curve value accounting for interpolation and region loops, returns a normalized 0.0-1.0 value, and may return an error. This is meaningful supplemental transparency, though it could be slightly more specific about error conditions or edge cases (e.g., no automation at position).

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short behavioral note, a parameter list, and a return statement. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the most important content is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition that detracts.

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 complexity (interpolation, loops, overlapping regions, normalized output), the description covers the core behavior and return contract. It lists all parameters and notes the possible error. It does not explain the meaning of 'AU' or elaborate on error specifics, but for a read-only getter with an output schema, this is adequately 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming each parameter and providing a brief semantic role: 'unit_index: AU index', 'track_index: Value (automation) track index within the AU', 'position_beats: Position in beats (float).' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it is brief and assumes domain knowledge of 'AU'.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Get the automation value at a specific position on a value (automation) track.' It uses a distinct verb ('Get') and resource, and the elaboration about resolving curves with interpolation, loops, and overlapping regions distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_automation_events or set_automation_interpolation.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need the resolved automation value at a point rather than event data. It provides context about how the resolution works (interpolation, loops, overlapping regions), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is a clear context with no exclusions, matching a 4.

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