mcp_opendaw_identify_chords

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the grouping algorithm, tolerance behavior, chord types matched, and return fields. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'Reads all notes from a region' strongly implies a non-destructive operation. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., no chords detected) but is otherwise transparent.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then follows a logical flow: algorithm, use cases, parameters, return value. Every sentence earns its place; the parameter explanations are necessary given the schema has no descriptions. It is long but not bloated.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: input parameters explained, algorithm described, known chord types enumerated, and return fields listed. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The only minor omission is error or empty-result behavior, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 compensates fully. Every parameter (unit_index, track_index, region_index, group_tolerance, min_notes) is explained with meaning, defaults, and context (e.g., '0.25 = notes within a 16th note of each other'). This adds substantial value over the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Identify chords from existing notes in a region'. It clearly distinguishes this analysis tool from generation tools like mcp_opendaw_create_chord_progression, and explains the algorithm and output. Purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Provides concrete use cases: 'understanding imported MIDI, analyzing AI-generated progressions, reverse-engineering a track's harmony, or verifying that generated chords match the intended progression.' This is clear context but stops short of explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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