mcp_opendaw_measure_lufs

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility. It reveals the algorithm implementation details (K-weighting, gating, formula), which is highly transparent about how measurements are computed. It also states the return values, though it doesn't mention failure modes or side effects.

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 organized with a summary, algorithm bullet points, parameter explanation, and returns. It's slightly verbose due to the algorithm details, but those add value.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description needn't detail return structures. It covers the main aspects, though it omits prerequisites like ensuring the file exists or that the export is complete.

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 schema provides only a 'filename' string with a title, but the description adds crucial meaning: it's a WAV file in the exports directory, without path. This compensates well for the schema's 0% coverage.

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 it measures LUFS and true peak of an exported WAV file, with a specific verb and resource. The detailed algorithm description further distinguishes it from other analysis tools.

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 specifies the target (exported WAV file) but does not offer explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling analysis tools like analyze_dynamics or get_audio_file_info. The use case is implied for loudness measurement, but no exclusions or alternatives are listed.

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