mcp_opendaw_list_signature_changes

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure (position in beats, numerator, denominator), which assists in understanding what the tool outputs beyond the annotation. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover sorting or limits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the main action in the first sentence and immediately explains the return data in the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It names the specific source (signature track), the scope (all changes), and the key return fields (position, numerator, denominator). No further context is needed given the simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than explaining nonexistent parameters. Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and nothing in the description needs to compensate.

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 the tool's action ('List all time signature changes') with a specific resource ('the timeline's signature track') and even details the returned fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_signature_events, which could overlap in purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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: this is for retrieving all time signature changes on the signature track. It implies usage for inspection/read purposes, and the readOnlyHint reinforces that. But it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_signature_events or list_tempo_changes instead.

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