mcp_opendaw_list_sends

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds value by specifying the return shape (send_index, target_bus_name, send_level_db, routing) and confirms the read-only nature by saying 'List all'. No contradictions found.

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, front-loaded with the main action, followed by parameter explanation and return format. Each sentence serves a purpose with no unnecessary filler.

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 (one parameter, one action) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return content. It is complete and self-contained.

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 schema provides only the type and name for unit_index, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by stating 'Audio unit index to inspect', providing the necessary semantic context for the single 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?

The description clearly states 'List all aux sends on an audio unit' — a specific verb, resource, and scope (the audio unit). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_send or set_send_level by focusing on listing, and from list_audio_buses by referencing sends rather than buses.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: it lists sends on a given audio unit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the operation is self-evident and complements the related send-management tools.

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