mcp_opendaw_get_unit_freeze_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read, the description adds valuable context: the meaning of freeze status, the sidechain-dependent limitation, and the exact return fields (frozen, can_freeze, has_sidechain_dependents). It does not contradict annotations, and the added behavioral detail goes beyond the structured data.

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 front-loaded: it states the primary purpose in the first sentence, then gives a one-sentence concept explanation, a one-line parameter note, and a one-line return description. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 query with one parameter, the description covers the purpose, key constraints, and return values, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. A minor gap is the lack of detail about valid unit_index values, but overall it is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter, unit_index, is described merely as 'AU index,' which essentially restates the schema title 'Unit Index.' It does not explain whether indices are zero-based, how to discover valid indices, or what happens on an invalid index, so it fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Check if an audio unit is frozen and whether it can be frozen,' which precisely identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like freeze_audiounit and unfreeze_audiounit by being a query rather than a mutation.

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 explains when the check is relevant: freeze status indicates pre-rendered audio, and an AU with sidechain dependents cannot be frozen. This implies the tool should be used before attempting to freeze, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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