modx_list_installed_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing the two filesystem locations scanned, which tells the agent this is a directory-derived read rather than a DB/package-registry query. However, it says nothing about what happens if a directory is missing, whether results are deduplicated across the two locations, or what each entry contains.

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?

One short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it stops at naming the source directories without saying what a listed component record includes (name, version, enabled state). For a simple zero-parameter read tool this is serviceable but 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 the parameter-semantics baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to explain or omit on this dimension.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus concrete resource ("installed MODX components") and even the source directories (core/components, assets/components). An agent can tell this apart from generic element listing, but it does not distinguish itself from package-related siblings such as modx_search_packages or modx_get_component_files.

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 description states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like modx_search_packages (packages) or modx_get_component_files (files within a component). Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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