import_get_formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by revealing the mechanism (mcpClassExists against specific classes) and that results reflect actual local plugin availability. No contradiction with 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 short and front-loaded with the purpose and call condition. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy for an LLM consumer, but it remains compact and every sentence conveys meaningful guidance.

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 probe without an output schema, this description is complete: it states what is checked, why, and when to call it. The result concept ('which ... plugins this Max can actually use') is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 the input schema is trivially complete, so the baseline is 4. The description nonetheless adds useful context by enumerating which format classes are probed.

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 ('Report' / '探测') and resource ('importer/exporter plugins this Max can actually use'), with a concrete list of checked classes (FBX/OBJ/glTF/USD/Alembic/STL/3DS). This clearly distinguishes it as a preflight availability check rather than an import/export operation.

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?

It explicitly states when to call: 'Call it before depending on a specific format instead of guessing.' This is clear usage context, but it does not name alternatives or exclusions such as does_class_exist, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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