modx_check_integrations

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does state "Read-only" explicitly and scopes the check to "this site," which are the two facts that matter most. It says nothing about permissions required, whether the scan is expensive/cached, or how the capability mapping is derived, so a zero-parameter inspection tool is only partially covered.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the safety profile. The parenthetical add-on list earns its place by concretizing "popular add-ons" and there is no filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must sketch the return content itself, and it does: installed add-ons plus a per-add-on capability note. What is missing is the form of that report (list vs. per-component status) and how unknown/undetected add-ons are represented.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the whole site is the implicit scope rather than requiring a target argument.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Report") and a concrete resource (installed popular MODX add-ons, enumerated as miniShop2, MIGX, pdoTools, Tickets), plus the second output dimension "what modxMCP can do with each." It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling modx_list_installed_components, which an agent could easily pick instead.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight capability check before reaching for add-on-specific tools (modx_ms2_*, modx_migx_*, etc.). There is no explicit "use this before X" statement and no exclusion telling the agent when modx_list_installed_components is the better choice instead.

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