mcp_opendaw_list_automatable_fields

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'List' and describing return metadata. It adds context about what the tool returns (field names, current values, automatable status) and clarifies 'supports Pointers.Automation'. No contradiction, but the description is not overly detailed about edge cases.

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, with three short paragraphs: purpose, automation relevance, parameter explanations, and return value summary. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return fields; it summarizes them. The tool is simple (list fields) and the description covers purpose, parameters, and output, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0% but the description fully explains both parameters: 'unit_index' is the audio unit index containing the instrument, and 'sample_index' is for Playfield sample slots with default -1 for top-level. This adds meaningful semantics beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('automatable parameter fields on an instrument or specific Playfield sample'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_instrument_params and list_effect_parameters by focusing on automatable fields only.

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 to use this tool: to discover which fields support automation ('only these can be automated'). It also clarifies context for sample_index with Playfield. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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