mcp_opendaw_list_script_params

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable context: mapping info is derived from code declarations, not runtime introspection, and the code is the single source of truth. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand data provenance.

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 concise sentences; the first states the core purpose and the second adds essential detail about output fields and data source. No filler or repetition.

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?

Output schema and return values are covered, and the description explains what the list contains. However, without any param semantics, the tool is incomplete for an agent that needs to know how to specify a scriptable device. This is a noticeable gap for a 3-required-parameter tool.

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% and the description does not explain device_type, unit_index, or device_index. The agent is given no semantic meaning for any of the three required parameters, making correct invocation largely guesswork.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'List @param declarations on a scriptable device with full mapping info.' It details exactly what is returned (label, index, current value, min, max, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by targeting scriptable device parameters.

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 clear context (parsed from `// @param` declarations, code is source of truth) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_effect_parameters or list_instrument_params, nor does it mention exclusions.

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