Installation status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by naming the executables it locates and the specific information it reports from maxplus2.ini and bundled tools, though it does not discuss failure modes or permissions.

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 a single tight sentence front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every clause adds specific, non-redundant information, and the trailing 'Read-only' note is short and clearly framed.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return information an agent can expect. It does not elaborate on the optional root parameter or error cases, but the schema covers parameter semantics and the annotations cover safety, making the description nearly complete for this simple tool.

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 100%, and the single optional 'root' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default behavior. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern ('locate the MAX+PLUS II installation') and details what is reported (version info, device families, bundled tools). It clearly identifies the tool's focus, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as capability_matrix or probe_executable.

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 states what the tool does and notes that it is read-only, but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools that might also report environment or capability information.

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