mcp_opendaw_list_instrument_params

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the unit_index behavior (-1 auto-detect first non-master AU) and describing the return content (instrument type, parameters with values/units/constraints). No side effects are mentioned, which is consistent with read-only.

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 well-structured with separate lines for purpose, parameter semantics, and return details. Each sentence is informative and there is no redundancy 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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool, an output schema, and read-only annotation, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, supported instruments, and return content. It is sufficiently complete 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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains unit_index's meaning and the special -1 value, adding critical context for correct invocation. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 lists instrument parameters for an audio unit, with a specific verb and resource. It lists compatible instruments, which helps distinguish from effect or MIDI effect tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_vaporisateur_params.

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 implies use for inspecting instrument parameters and notes compatible instrument types, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative list tools (e.g., list_effect_parameters, list_vaporisateur_params) or any exclusions.

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