mcp_opendaw_get_midi_effect_chain

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a non-mutating operation. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ('ordered list of MIDI effects with type, enabled state, and index'), which is not covered by the annotation. No contradictions; additional behavioral details like error cases are absent but not critical for a simple getter.

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: two sentences for the main action and return, plus one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only nature, one parameter, and existing readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the necessary behavior and return structure. It doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., invalid unit_index), but the output schema (present but not shown) likely covers return details. Overall, this is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only defines unit_index as an integer with no description. The description supplies the meaning: 'Audio unit index.' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It could be more detailed (e.g., how to obtain the index), but for a single-parameter read-only tool, it is adequate.

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 states 'Get the MIDI effect chain for an audio unit' with a clear verb and resource. It further specifies the return content (ordered list with type, enabled state, index), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_effect_chain (audio effects) and list_midi_effects (likely global listing). Purpose is 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 implies this tool is for retrieving a specific unit's MIDI effect chain, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as get_effect_chain or list_midi_effects. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is only implicit.

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