does_class_exist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the context that this is a pre-use availability probe, but does not disclose details such as return type, error behavior, or whether 'exists' means class is loaded vs. registered. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 short bilingual sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only existence check, the description provides sufficient context. It does not specify the return value, but 'check whether a class exists' strongly implies a boolean result, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 sole parameter className already has a bilingual description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, 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 ('check whether') and names the exact resource ('a class exists in this 3ds Max installation'), plus the purpose ('plugin availability can be probed before use'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_max_classes, which enumerate classes rather than test a single named class.

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 gives clear usage context: call it before using a plugin or feature to probe availability. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intent is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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