mcp_opendaw_list_modular_modules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return content (type, label, x/y position, inputs, outputs, parameter values) and enumerating module types (gain, delay, multiplier, audio-input, audio-output). This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand what to expect from the call.

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, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence. It then provides parameter details and return information without any redundant fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it an example of efficient writing.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail every return field. It already covers the input parameters and return content. A minor gap is that it does not mention how to obtain au_index/effect_index (e.g., via list_modular_devices), but for a straightforward read-only listing tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has zero descriptions for its two parameters, but the description compensates fully by defining au_index as 'Audio unit index' and effect_index as 'Effect index within the AU.' This provides essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks, making the parameters self-explanatory.

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 opens with 'List all modules in a Modular device,' which clearly states the action (list), the resource (modules), and the scope (in a Modular device). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_modular_devices (lists devices) and list_modular_connections (lists connections) by specifically targeting modules within a device.

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 the two parameters (au_index, effect_index) which implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_modular_connections or provide exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied rather than explicit, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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