mcp_opendaw_get_tempo_at

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description's 'Get' and 'Returns BPM at that position, or error.' The description adds useful behavioral context about accounting for tempo automation and its error return, going beyond what annotations already provide.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains only essential information: the param definition and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It states the input, the return (BPM or error), and the automation consideration. No other aspects (like pagination or side effects) are relevant.

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 must compensate. It does define the parameter as 'Position in beats (float)', but this largely restates the schema's type and title. No additional constraints (e.g., valid range, reference point) are provided, so it barely rises above the baseline.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('BPM at a specific position'), and a key differentiator ('accounting for tempo automation'). It can be distinguished from siblings like set_bpm, add_tempo_change, and list_tempo_changes.

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 makes it clear when to use the tool: to obtain BPM at a specific position, especially accounting for automation. However, it does not explicitly mention why it should be preferred over alternatives like list_tempo_changes, though the automation mention strongly implies the use case.

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