mcp_opendaw_list_audio_regions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description aligns with this ('List') without adding additional behavioral context such as error conditions, sorting, or limits. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a middle score is appropriate, but the description doesn't enrich behavioral transparency beyond the annotation.

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, followed by parameter definitions and a clear list of return fields. No filler words or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list operation, this description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameters (including the sentinel value), and return fields, giving the agent everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret the results. The low complexity and presence of an output schema further reduce the need for additional context. No significant gaps.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the parameters (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains both unit_index and track_index, and crucially documents the special value '-1' for track_index meaning 'all tracks'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema names and fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'List all audio regions with file name, position, and duration.' It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_note_regions) by explicitly targeting audio regions and describing the relevant fields. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to list audio regions. It also clarifies parameter usage, especially the sentinel value '-1' for track_index to target all audio tracks. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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