mcp_opendaw_get_device_chain_detail

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which already signals a safe read operation. The description adds context about what data is returned (instrument info, audio_effect array, midi_effect array) and mentions parameter counts. However, it does not disclose details like whether the AU must exist, error behaviors, or performance implications. Still, it adds some value beyond annotations.

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, with a brief overview, a clear statement of what one call does, a parameter line, and a list of return sections. Every sentence adds information without 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?

Given there is an output schema (not shown in detail) and the tool is simple (one param, no nested objects), the description is sufficient. It explains the input and the high-level return structure. It could mention whether the response includes names of effects or just counts, but the output schema likely covers that, and the return arrays are stated.

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 description explicitly explains the sole parameter 'unit_index: AU index.' Although the schema already includes the parameter name and type, the description adds the semantic meaning (AU index) which is missing from the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this is crucial and compensates well.

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 verb ('Get detailed info') and resource ('all devices on an AU — instrument, audio effects, MIDI effects'). It specifies what is returned (instrument name/type, effects labels, enabled state, minimized state, parameter counts) and includes a parameter description. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_effects or get_effect_chain by focusing on the full device chain detail.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting a complete device chain on a given AU, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_effect_chain, list_effects, or list_midi_effects. There is minimal context about use cases (e.g., 'One call to inspect the full device chain'), but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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