mcp_opendaw_get_effect_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by using 'Get full state' and 'Returns complete effect state snapshot.' It adds behavioral context by listing exactly what is included (enabled/bypass, minimized, sidechain, parameters) and the semantics of the two indexes, going beyond the annotation's minimal safety hint.

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 a clear lead sentence, a comparative note, parameter explanations, and a closing return statement. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the final 'Returns complete effect state snapshot' largely restates the opening sentence.

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 tool with two integer parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, tool differentiation, parameter semantics, and return content. Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values further, making this a complete package.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining unit_index as 'Audio unit index' and effect_index as 'Effect position in the chain (0-based).' This adds meaningful clarification for both parameters, especially the 0-based positioning detail, which is not evident from the schema titles alone.

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 retrieves the full state of an effect, enumerating the included fields (enabled, minimized, sidechain, parameters). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_effect_parameters by being more detailed, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear comparison with list_effect_parameters, noting this tool is 'more detailed' and includes bypass state, minimized state, sidechain, and a full parameter dump. It implies when this tool is preferred over its lighter sibling, though it does not explicitly state a conditional when-not scenario.

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