mcp_opendaw_list_samples

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds that it returns UUIDs and metadata, which is useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or performance implications. It does not contradict 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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second specifies the return content. Optimal conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description is complete. It clearly states what is listed (all audio file samples used in the project) and what is returned (UUIDs and metadata), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 0 parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist, and it correctly focuses on the output.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('audio file samples used in the project'), and specifies the scope ('all'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_playfield_samples by focusing on samples 'used in the project'.

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 when one needs to list project samples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison to list_playfield_samples or other similar tools is given, leaving the context inferred.

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