mcp_opendaw_get_project_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so read-only is known. The description adds behavioral scope: it returns specific summary fields and explicitly excludes per-track detail, which is useful context beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first lists the returned data, second provides usage context and sibling comparison. No redundant words, content front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, no need to document return values separately. No parameters to document. Annotations cover safety. The description explains purpose, scope, and relationship to sibling tool, making it complete for a simple read-only overview.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. Baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools 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?

Description states exactly what the tool does: 'Get a quick project overview: BPM, time signature, track/AU/effect counts, total duration.' It distinguishes from sibling get_project_state by noting it's 'lighter' and has 'no per-track detail,' making its scope clear.

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?

Explicitly says 'Single-call summary — lighter than get_project_state (no per-track detail),' which tells the agent when to use this tool (quick overview) and when not (if per-track detail is needed). This names an alternative and gives an exclusion.

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