modx_list_roles

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the shape of returned rows (id, name, authority). It says nothing about pagination defaults, whether results are truncated, ordering, or whether this is a read-only safe call — all of which matter given the undocumented limit/start parameters.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than tightly written; nothing is wasted, but little is conveyed.

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 simple zero-required-parameter list tool this is close to sufficient — the agent knows what it returns. The gaps are the three unexplained parameters and the absence of any pointer to the create/update/delete/get role siblings, which for a mutation-capable family is a meaningful omission.

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%, so the description should compensate but does not: limit, query, and start appear nowhere in the text, and the parenthetical '(id, name, authority)' describes output fields rather than inputs. An agent cannot tell whether 'query' is a substring filter, a name match, or something else.

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 ('List access roles') and names the returned fields (id, name, authority), which separates it from the singular sibling modx_get_role. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from modx_list_user_groups or modx_list_access_policies, but the noun is specific enough for an agent to identify the right tool.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says to call this before modx_create_role/modx_update_role to obtain role ids, nor that modx_get_role should be used for a single role. The agent must infer the workflow from the name alone.

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