mcp_opendaw_get_region_play_mode

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present in annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the fallback behavior ('or info if no stretch mode (plain playback)') and enumerating the returned fields. This goes beyond the annotation's simple 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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a bullet-like list of parameter definitions, and a return-behavior sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple read-only getter with three integer parameters and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return behavior including the edge case of no stretch mode. No critical information is missing 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by defining all three parameters (unit_index, track_index, region_index) with clear hierarchical context (AU, track within AU, audio region). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('play mode of an audio region'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (stretch type, playback rate, cents, transient mode). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_region_info or get_track_info.

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 its usage by naming the resource and parameters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisite conditions. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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