mcp_opendaw_list_automation_events_detail

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent, describing a read-only listing operation. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by specifying return content ('Returns event list with positions in beats, values, and interpolation details') and units. No contradiction; lacks mention of error cases or scale but sufficient for a list tool.

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 tight and well-structured: purpose sentence, comparison, parameter explanations, and return summary. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, differentiation, parameter semantics, and return format. The output schema exists, so return details are structured elsewhere. Minor gaps: no mention of error conditions or handling of empty/invalid tracks, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable given the annotations and schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by clarifying 'unit_index: AU index' and 'track_index: Value (automation) track index.' This adds domain meaning beyond the raw integer type, though not exhaustive about lookup methods.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all automation events on a value track with full detail — position, value, interpolation.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by noting 'More detailed than list_automation_events — includes interpolation type and curve slope.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope with explicit differentiation.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'More detailed than list_automation_events — includes interpolation type and curve slope.' The parameter explanations also clarify which track/unit to target, giving clear context for invocation.

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