modx_get_component_files

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read-only listing. It does not say whether the listing is recursive, how deep it goes, whether it can be called on uninstalled components, or what permissions are required — all relevant for a filesystem-facing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what the returned entries look like (folders vs files, relative paths) or how 'scope' changes the result set.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that 'name' is the component identifier, that 'path' is a starting subdirectory, or what the 'core'/'assets'/'all' enum values actually select — leaving the most ambiguous parameter (scope) entirely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files and folders') constrained to an installed MODX component, which distinguishes it from modx_list_installed_components (lists components themselves) and modx_read_component_file (reads one file's content). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implied by the phrase 'inside an installed MODX component' — an agent can infer it should call this after identifying a component and before reading a specific file. However, no alternative is named and no condition (e.g. 'use modx_read_component_file to read contents') is given.

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