max_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact that expressions are genuinely evaluated (not statically inspected) and are processed in order, which is valuable. However, it never warns that evaluation can have side effects — its own example "(Box()).wirecolor" creates a scene object — and says nothing about error handling, timeouts, or whether results include values or just pass/fail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a short rationale and a compact example block. Every line contributes, though the "reflection cannot tell you..." sentence could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth about returns; it says only that it reports "which ones actually work," leaving unclear whether values, error messages, or partial results are returned. The omission of side-effect caveats is also material for a tool that executes arbitrary expressions.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines `expressions` as MAXScript expressions evaluated in order and supplies three concrete example strings that convey expected syntax. It omits any guidance on size limits or how many expressions is reasonable.

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?

States a specific verb (evaluate/try) and resource (MAXScript expressions) plus the output shape: which expressions actually work. It also names the sibling it contrasts with (max_api) and explains why reflection can't do the job, so an agent can distinguish it from the other max_* 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?

"Run them before writing code that depends on them" gives a clear trigger condition, and the description explains the max_api blind spot that motivates using this instead. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g., when to use max_eval instead of this for actually running production code).

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