mcp_opendaw_list_midi_output_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the scope (project-registered hardware outputs) and return fields, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as ordering, performance, or side effects. This aligns with the calibration sample where a read-only tool with additional context scores 3.

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 a compact two sentences: the first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second lists the return fields. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

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 listing tool with readOnlyHint=true and an output schema present, the description fully captures the essential information: what is listed, the scope, and what is returned. There is no significant missing context.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to add about parameter semantics. The description focuses on return fields, which is beyond the schema's empty properties, so it earns the baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('MIDI output devices'), and the scope ('registered in the project', 'hardware MIDI outputs'). It also enumerates the return fields, fully distinguishing it from any sibling listing tools.

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?

It provides clear context by specifying it lists hardware MIDI outputs registered in the project, which implies when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the highest tier of guidance.

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