modx_list_actions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that output is grouped by area and reflects what this server build supports (i.e., a static capability set rather than live state), which is useful, but it says nothing about ordering, whether the action names map to the actual tool names, or how a client is expected to compare its own list against the result.

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, purpose first and use case second, with no filler. It could be slightly tighter by folding the version-skew note into the same sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 small discovery tool with no params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials but stops short of describing the return shape (e.g., area keys and action-name entries) or how to act on a discovered mismatch. Adequate, not complete.

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 to document and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless.

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?

"List the action names this modxMCP server build supports, grouped by area" gives a concrete verb and resource and scopes it to this build's supported action set. It is clearly not the same as the CRUD siblings, but it never distinguishes itself from the other meta/discovery siblings such as modx_help or modx_system_info, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 second sentence supplies one concrete trigger: detecting client/server version skew. That is genuine when-to-use guidance, but there are no exclusions and no pointer to the closest alternative (modx_help) for agents that just want general documentation.

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