mcp_opendaw_list_warp_markers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying the return format (position, seconds, isAnchor) and the empty result when no stretch mode is present. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, using short sentences with clear sectioning for parameters and return value. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

With an output schema present and simple list operation, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and return behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly defines each parameter: 'unit_index: AU index', 'track_index: Track index within the AU', 'region_index: Audio region index'. This fully compensates for the missing 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 opens with 'List warp markers on a time-stretched or pitch-stretched audio region', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further explains what warp markers are and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_markers or list_transient_markers by specifying warp markers on stretched 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?

It states 'Used for tempo-matching audio regions', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It also implies a precondition (time-stretched/pitch-stretched region), but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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