mcp_opendaw_list_midi_effect_params

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already signals a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail by stating it returns 'parameter names, values, units, and constraints' and specifies that values are current. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful output expectations beyond the structured data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It adds parameter explanations and a one-line return summary, all in four short lines. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage and return semantics. It does not discuss error cases or prerequisites, but the simplicity of the operation and the existing readOnlyHint annotation make that acceptable.

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% and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'unit_index: Audio unit index' and 'effect_index: MIDI effect position in the chain (0-based).' The effect_index explanation is especially clear, though unit_index could be slightly more precise about what 'audio unit' refers to.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List all parameters of a MIDI effect with current values.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_midi_effects or list_effect_parameters by specifying it targets MIDI effect parameters, not the effects themselves.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need parameter names, values, units, and constraints for a MIDI effect. It also explains the parameters needed to target the correct effect. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops 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.