mcp_opendaw_list_modular_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds that it returns connections with source/target info, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. No contradictions with annotations, and the added return description is minimal beyond what the output schema likely provides.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses clear line breaks for parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose with no extraneous content.

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 read-only list operation, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. With output schema present and annotations for safety, there are no significant gaps in 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?

The description explicitly explains both parameters: 'au_index: Audio unit index' and 'effect_index: Effect index within the AU.' This adds meaning that the schema lacks, since the schema only lists titles with no descriptions. It fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states 'List all connections (patch cables) in a Modular device' with a specific verb and resource, making it clear this tool retrieves connection data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_modular_modules and list_modular_devices by focusing on connections.

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 provides context by indicating the tool operates on a Modular device and requires au_index and effect_index, implying when it applies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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