mcp_opendaw_list_split_modes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds value by noting the return includes SDR scores and use-case recommendations, but it does not disclose response size, ordering, or performance characteristics. This is acceptable given the annotation, but not richly transparent.

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 that immediately state the action ('List'), the target resource, and the key return contents. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 zero-argument informational tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, scope (all modes), and return value highlights. The explicit link to mcp_opendaw_split_stems gives it the necessary context for an agent to decide when to call it.

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, so there is no parameter detail to add. The description correctly focuses on return value context (SDR scores and recommendations), which is more useful than parameter information here.

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 identifies the tool as 'List available stem separation modes with descriptions' and explicitly ties it to mcp_opendaw_split_stems. This distinguishes it from related tools like split_stems or export_stems by framing it as the informational counterpart, with a specific verb and resource.

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?

It establishes clear context: this tool returns all modes supported by mcp_opendaw_split_stems, implying it should be used to discover available separation modes before invoking split_stems. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of full guidance.

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