get_max_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds the preflight-check context but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as response format, performance characteristics, or failure modes. The annotations carry the safety burden, so this is adequate 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, listing the return fields first and then the usage guidance. The bilingual repetition adds length but is likely intentional for the target audience; it does not include fluff or irrelevant detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description is complete: it lists all returned information and explains when to invoke it. No output schema exists, but the enumerated fields sufficiently inform an agent about what to expect.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.

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 a specific verb ('return') and a specific resource (3ds Max version information), enumerating the fields returned: year, internal major version, version string, build number, UI language, system language, and unit setup. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from nearby language/system-info 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: check version before using features that differ between releases, such as UV unwrap, import/export formats, and render engines. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but no obvious alternative exists for version retrieval, so the context is clear.

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