mcp_opendaw_list_genre_profiles

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds context about profile contents (LUFS, spectral balance, stereo width, dynamic range), which sets expectations for returned data. It does not contradict annotations, but it doesn't go beyond that to discuss prerequisites or 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?

The description is three short sentences with no redundancy. It leads with the purpose, then explains what profiles contain, and finishes with a workflow pointer. 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 simple zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role, the profile definition, and the typical follow-up action. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further description is needed.

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 the input schema is fully documented (coverage 100%). Baseline 4 applies, and no additional parameter semantics are necessary or provided.

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 resource ('genre reference profiles'), and clarifies the purpose ('for mix analysis'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_to_profile and analyze_mix by indicating this is the listing operation.

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 explicitly directs the agent to 'Use compare_to_profile() to check your mix against any of these,' providing clear guidance on when to use which tool. This is an explicit alternative/next-step reference, matching the high-scoring pattern from the calibration example.

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