mcp_opendaw_list_value_regions

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds value by explaining the -1 sentinel behavior for scanning all AUs and all value tracks, plus listing returned fields. No contradiction with annotations, and no destructive/concurrency concerns are relevant.

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 and front-loaded: purpose, behavior, parameter explanations, and return type are each covered in one short line. No fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation details. It explains parameter semantics, returned fields, and scope behavior sufficiently.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: unit_index and track_index, including the meaning of -1 as 'search all'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('automation regions on value/automation tracks'), and further clarifies with 'ValueRegionBox'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_audio_regions or list_note_regions.

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 the tool: when you need region-level data (position, duration, loop, mute, label) on value/automation tracks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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