Discover available MAX+plus II capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it distinguishes implemented entry points from operations verified on this specific machine and from physical programming requirements, which is a machine-state nuance the annotations do not capture. It still says nothing about response shape, but the added distinction earns credit above baseline.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The wording is jargon-heavy ('precise routes', 'implemented entry points') but every clause carries information, and the distinct mode it returns is stated first.

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 no output schema, the description bears full responsibility for telling the agent what it receives, and it only gestures at this ('routes and runtime requirements', 'distinguishes... verification'). For an agent trying to act on the result, the actual contents and format remain under-specified, leaving a real gap for a zero-param tool whose entire value is its return payload.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument query rather than any input-driven operation.

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 signals a capability-discovery tool that returns routes and runtime requirements across authoring, compilation, simulation, and GUI-only workflows. However, 'precise routes' is jargon that doesn't concretely say what a caller gets back, and it draws no boundary against discovery-oriented siblings like installation_status, probe_executable, or desktop_status. Purpose is inferable but not sharply stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The closest siblings (installation_status, probe_executable) are equally discovery-flavored, yet the description gives the agent no rule for choosing between them.

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