mcp_opendaw_list_tracks

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with 'List'. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the returned structure: audio units with tracks (audio/note/automation), effects chain, volume, panning, and region count. This adds useful behavioral context about the output, with no contradictions.

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?

Exactly two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second summarizes the return details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only listing tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed (tracks across all audio units) and what is included (type, effects, regions, volume, panning, region count). It is complete for practical use, though it omits possible edge cases like empty projects or performance considerations.

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, so the empty schema is fully covered. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description does not need to explain any parameters and correctly focuses on the result. No room for additional parameter semantics.

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 tracks across all audio units with their type, effects, and regions' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_markers, list_notes, etc.) by focusing on tracks and their associated data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when an agent needs an overview of all tracks and their properties. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other listing tools like list_note_regions or list_effects, nor any exclusions. It's a generic read-only listing context with only implied applicability.

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