get_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior; it does so by listing exactly which folders are returned and framing them as defaults. There are no side effects, mutation, or external dependencies disclosed, and nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 compact: a front-loaded listing of the eight directory categories followed by a one-line usage note. It is repeated in Chinese and English, which serves localization but adds some redundancy; still, no filler or irrelevant detail is present.

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 utility, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, names every folder category, and gives a concrete use case. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because the enumerated categories tell an agent 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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description is as complete as needed; naming the returned folder categories is enough to indicate what the tool will use internally.

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 an explicit verb ('返回'/'Return') with a specific resource ('3ds Max 的各类默认目录'/'3ds Max default folders') and enumerates all directory categories (install, scripts, export/import, render output, temp, autoback, material library). This makes it unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like get_system_info or get_max_version.

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 clearly states the intended use: '用于拼出正确的默认输出路径' / 'Use it to build sensible default output paths.' This provides clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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