I strongly dislike it on one count. It actively promotes using the choice of tools as a marker for "true agile". They go so far as to reword the first item to exclude any references to tools. I have seen plenty of groups using all the right tools, full of individually skilled developers, producing garbage late to schedule. The reason is that they did not interact with each other in a way that lead to success. They drew lines about whose problem things were and then used them to assert problems weren't theirs. They set up their own (or modified shared) interface documentation and let it be out of synch with what the other end specified. And on down the line. Tools can help, sometimes. But if someone is using cvs or subversion instead of git, I'm not going to label them as nonagile. If they didn't pick c++'s build system of the week, that doesn't meen the product isn't quality.
I am inclined to think there was some incentive to formally support those tools with the paper. Maybe nothing as blatent as free trips and meals, but who knows.