modx_list_tv_values

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value by clarifying that only explicitly stored values are returned and that stale/orphaned values are included — a non-obvious trait. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the call is read-only in effect, or how results are paged/ordered.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then the usage cue. No redundant restatement of the name or filler.

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 four-parameter, undocumented-schema, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and one important behavioral trait but leaves the identifier/pagination parameters and the shape of the returned data unaddressed. An agent can pick the tool correctly but must open the schema to call it correctly.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'limit' is described) and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It never explains tv_id vs tv_name, whether one is required, or what happens when both are supplied or neither is — a real gap given zero required parameters. 'One TV' only implies an identifier must be provided.

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 names a specific verb (list) and resource (stored TV values for one TV across all resources), and sharpens the scope with 'explicitly stored' plus the note about stale values on resources whose template no longer uses the TV. That scope detail separates it from per-resource siblings like modx_get_resource_tvs without needing to name them.

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?

'Use before deleting or restructuring a TV' gives a clear triggering condition and implied ordering relative to delete/edit operations. It does not name explicit alternatives (e.g. modx_get_resource_tvs for a single resource) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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