mcp_opendaw_list_audio_buses

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

With readOnlyHint already provided, the description adds useful context: the precise scope of what is listed (primary output + FX buses) and the exact return fields (bus index, name, enabled state, audio unit index). It is consistent with the annotation and discloses no side effects.

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 concise, well-structured sentences: the first states the primary action and scope, the second lists return fields. No fluff or 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 zero-parameter read-only list with an output schema, the description conveys purpose, scope, and return contents. It omits minor details like behavior when no buses exist, but that is adequately covered by the output schema and the simplicity of the operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden on the description. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is met; no parameter explanation is necessary.

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 action ('List all audio buses') and the resource ('audio buses in the project'), with explicit scope ('primary output + FX buses'). It also enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that mutate, enable, or remove buses.

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 use as a read-only enumeration ('List all audio buses'), but does not explicitly contrast with other tools that might provide similar or overlapping information (e.g., get_mixer_state, get_project_state). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered.

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