mcp_opendaw_list_midi_effects

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds meaningful domain context (MIDI effects process note data before reaching the instrument, and are inserted on au.midiEffects chain), which helps the agent understand the entity being listed. No contradiction with annotations.

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: the first front-loads the purpose, and the next two give essential domain context. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or excessive wording.

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 output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers what the tool does, what MIDI effects are, and where they live. This is complete for the tool's complexity. The return format is covered by the output 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema contains nothing to explain. The description correctly focuses on the purpose rather than parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further parameter info is needed.

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' with a clear resource 'MIDI effect types' and states its scope ('all available'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_opendaw_list_effects (which likely lists audio effects) and mcp_opendaw_add_midi_effect (which adds rather than lists).

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 explains what MIDI effects are and where they are inserted (au.midiEffects), implying when this listing would be useful, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is named as a comparison.

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