modx_get_system_setting

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. "Get" implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior when the key does not exist (error vs empty), whether values are decrypted/raw, or caching.

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; the verb and scope arrive immediately. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to the minimum viable definition, and no output schema exists to offload return-value explanation. Missing error/nonexistent-key semantics and any note about the shape of the returned setting leave gaps an agent would have to discover by trial.

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% — the single `key` property has no type-level documentation at all. The phrase "by key" adds only a hint that the argument is the setting's key identifier; it does not specify format, namespaced keys, case sensitivity, or whether an area prefix is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get one MODX system setting") and scopes it to a single record via "by key", which implicitly separates it from the sibling modx_list_system_settings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative such as modx_list_system_settings for the case where the key is unknown. The only routing signal is the implied singular-vs-plural distinction.

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