list_max_classes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful registry-scope context and confirms it returns class names, but it does not disclose output format, pagination edge cases, or behavior on no matches. 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes concrete search examples that make the tool's value immediately understandable. The bilingual structure is useful for the audience and does not bloat the message.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search tool, the description gives enough context: what it searches, what it returns, and why it matters. There is no output schema, but the description clearly states the return is matching class names. Minor missing details like error or empty-result behavior are not critical here.

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%, so both keyword and limit are already documented, including case-insensitivity and the default limit. The description repeats the keyword concept and offers examples, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: search the 3ds Max class registry by keyword and return matching class names. It also adds a concrete use case—discovering installed plugins—which helps distinguish it from scene-level tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like list_scene_classes.

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 context for when to use it: to discover what plugins/materials are actually installed on a machine, with examples like Vray, FStorm, and Corona. It does not, however, state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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