mcp_opendaw_list_vaporisateur_params

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds meaningful context: the unit_index '-1 = auto-detect' behavior and a detailed breakdown of the returned state. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining what specific data will be returned and how to target the synth, though it does not address error cases like a missing Vaporisateur unit.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line summary, parameter explanation, and a bulleted return breakdown. The trailing 'etc.' is vague but does not significantly undermine the overall clarity; every major section 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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: what state is retrieved, how to target the synth, and the structure of the response. It lacks only edge-case behavior (e.g., no Vaporisateur found), which is minor for a getter.

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 the only parameter: 'unit_index: Audio unit index (-1 = auto-detect Vaporisateur)'. This adds semantic value beyond the bare integer type, including the special sentinel value, making the tool usable.

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 opens with 'Get full Vaporisateur synthesizer state' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling setters like set_vaporisateur_osc_param and generic getters like list_instrument_params. The listed sections (oscillators, LFO, noise, main) further clarify scope.

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 context implies this tool is for reading all Vaporisateur parameters at once, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. An agent might not know when to prefer this over get_effect_state or list_instrument_params, though the specialized name and return structure give reasonable guidance.

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