get_max_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation that returns environment information, which is clear but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, performance implications, or whether it requires specific permissions or connectivity. The description adds basic context about what information is returned but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add necessary details about return values and an example call, with minimal redundancy. However, the inclusion of a detailed 'Returns' section in the description (which could be moved to an output schema) slightly reduces efficiency, though it remains well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, return values, and provides an example. However, it lacks information on error cases or behavioral nuances, which would enhance completeness for a tool in a 3D modeling context where environment checks might fail.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly indicates no parameters by showing an example call 'get_max_version()' without arguments. It adds no semantic details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it adequately addresses the parameter context.

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 the specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('3ds Max 的版本信息和环境信息' meaning '3ds Max version and environment information'), distinguishing it from siblings that perform operations like creating objects, executing scripts, or modifying scene elements. It explicitly identifies what information is retrieved (version number, build info, Python version).

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 by stating it 'helps understand the runtime environment,' suggesting it should be used when environment details are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_scene_info for scene-specific data) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving guidance somewhat vague.

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