mcp_opendaw_get_note_range

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that: it mentions 'or error' and lists return fields, but does not detail error conditions, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. With annotations in place, the description does not carry the full burden, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured: opening sentence, return summary, parameter list, and return list. It is front-loaded and each line serves a purpose, though the opening sentence and the return list slightly overlap in stating the outputs.

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 an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, and return values. The mention of error behavior is vague, but the overall tool is simple and the annotations plus output schema fill in the rest.

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 has zero description coverage, so the parameter definitions in the description are essential and valuable. Each parameter (unit_index, track_index, region_index) gets a concise semantic explanation ('AU index', 'Note track index within the AU', 'Note region index'). While not exhaustive, it compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pitch range and max duration of notes in a note region'), and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying exact outputs (min pitch, max pitch, longest note duration). The name is reinforced and the 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('useful for determining the vocal/instrument range and planning transpose operations'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude other tools. This is sufficient for a simple getter, though it could be stronger with explicit 'use instead of' guidance.

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