mcp_opendaw_list_tempo_changes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read-only nature, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the return fields (position, BPM, interpolation type) and the normalized value mapping (minBpm..maxBpm, default 60..240). This goes beyond a bare 'list' statement and aids interpretation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the first states what it does, the second details the return values and a critical normalization caveat.

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 low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It covers the essential semantics: what is returned, the units (beats, BPM), and the normalization mapping which is crucial for correctly interpreting the BPM values. No gaps are apparent.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params establishes a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed.

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 lists all tempo (BPM) changes on the timeline's tempo track, using the specific verb 'List' and naming the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tempo_at (which retrieves a single tempo) and list_signature_changes (which handles a different track type).

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 that this tool is for enumerating tempo changes on the timeline, making its usage obvious. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling tool names (e.g., get_tempo_at vs. list_tempo_changes).

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