mcp_opendaw_get_piano_mode

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds the list of return fields, which is useful context, but does not disclose potential error scenarios or how the data is structured beyond the output schema. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and lists the return elements efficiently. No superfluous words or 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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the annotation, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is all that is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. It provides no parameter semantics because none exist, but this is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get piano roll view settings' and enumerates the exact fields returned (keyboard type, time range, note scale, note labels, transpose). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_piano_keyboard and set_piano_time_range, making its 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to retrieve piano roll view settings) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling setter tools are evident from context, but the description itself provides no direct comparison or exclusion guidance.

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