mcp_opendaw_list_playfield_samples

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying what the returned pad list includes (MIDI note, enabled state, effects). It does not contradict annotations and gives enough transparency for a read-only list operation.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a parameter explanation, and a return summary. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential parameter and return categories. It could mention error conditions or default behaviors, but for a listing operation it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the single parameter 'unit_index' including the special -1 auto-detect value. This compensates for the missing schema documentation and is sufficient for one required parameter.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and clear resource ('drum pads (samples) on a Playfield drum machine'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_samples by focusing on Playfield-specific pads and explicitly mentions the returned fields (MIDI note, enabled state, effects).

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 implies usage for querying Playfield pads but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_samples or set_playfield_sample_enabled. The unit_index explanation with auto-detect gives some context but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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