mcp_opendaw_get_bar_interval

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return values (bar_start, bar_end, bar_length, time signature) and clarifying the PPQN unit. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 exactly four short, focused sentences: purpose, use case, parameter, and output. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains zero redundant content.

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 simple getter tool with one parameter and an output schema, this description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what input it expects, and what it returns. The readOnly annotation and output schema complete the picture, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by defining 'position_ppqn: Position in PPQN.' This adds the crucial unit and clarifies the parameter's role, though it could go further with range details or examples. The single parameter is adequately explained.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('start and end PPQN of the bar containing the given position'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like ppqn_to_seconds or get_tempo_at. The purpose is unambiguous and names the exact output.

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 second sentence provides a clear use case: 'Useful for snapping regions, clips, and events to bar boundaries.' This gives the agent context for when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls one point short of a 5.

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