mcp_opendaw_list_effect_parameters

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description adds value by stating what the tool returns: 'parameter names, current values, units, and ranges.' This goes beyond the annotation to disclose output structure, but does not detail error behaviors or 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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, two line-item parameter definitions, and a return summary. No extraneous information is present; 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of a readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return content adequately. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, yet the description explicitly defines both parameters: 'unit_index: Audio unit index' and 'effect_index: Effect position in the chain (0-based, from add_effect return).' This fully compensates for the lack of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all parameters of an effect on an audio unit.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_midi_effect_params or list_instrument_params, which target different effect types.

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 useful context by specifying that effect_index is 0-based and comes from add_effect return, implying a prerequisite call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls 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.