modx_list_context_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a non-mutating read, but the text adds no context about pagination behavior, permissions, or other result-scope behavior beyond filtering.

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 states the action, resource, and available filters without filler. Its brevity is effective; the remaining omissions are assessed in the other dimensions.

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?

This is adequate for making a basic unfiltered or filtered request, and the tool has no nested-object complexity. However, with no annotations, parameter documentation, or output schema, details about pagination, identifier formats, and sibling ACL tools would make selection and invocation more reliable.

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?

It partially compensates for 0% schema description coverage by identifying usergroup, context, and policy as optional filters. It does not explain identifier formats, whether context expects a context key, or how limit and start control pagination.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: listing context-access ACL entries rather than generically listing access data. This distinguishes it from the grant, update, and revoke context-access siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from other access-listing tools.

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 optional filters imply when to use it: inspect context ACLs, optionally narrowed by user group, context, or policy. It gives no explicit guidance on choosing this over modx_list_resourcegroup_access or modx_list_access_permissions, or on using the grant/update/revoke tools for changes.

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