mcp_opendaw_get_effect_chain

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation. The description adds that it returns an 'ordered list of effects with their type, enabled state, and index,' which gives some behavioral detail beyond the annotation. However, it does not address error cases or invalid indices, so it is modest.

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 concise, with three short sentences covering purpose, parameter, and return value. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary information.

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 read-only getter with one integer parameter, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter meaning, and return contents. An output schema exists, so the return structure is formally defined. It does not cover edge cases, but that is likely acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has one parameter, unit_index, with only a title 'Unit Index' and no description. The tool description adds 'unit_index: Audio unit index,' which provides minimal clarification that it is the index of the audio unit. However, it is largely redundant with the schema and does not specify indexing base or constraints.

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 'Get the full effect chain for an audio unit' with a specific verb and resource, and elaborates on the return value ('ordered list of effects with their type, enabled state, and index'). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_effects or get_effect_state, so it is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of sibling tools. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description, which is minimal.

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