modx_read_component_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden of disclosure and provides almost none: it does not say whether the operation is read-only, what happens when the file or component is missing, whether path traversal is restricted, or whether binary/large files are handled differently. Only the bare act of reading is conveyed.

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 with no filler, so it is efficiently structured; it is only penalized elsewhere for being under-specified rather than verbose.

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 file-system-adjacent tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It does not indicate the return shape (raw text vs bytes), size limits, or the scope semantics an agent needs 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate and adds nothing about the three parameters. It never explains that "name" is the component/package identifier, that "path" is relative to that component, or what "scope" (core/assets/all) changes about the lookup — the enum values are left for the agent to guess.

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 pairs the verb "Read" with a specific resource, "a file from an installed MODX component," which clearly separates it from media-source reads (modx_read_media_source_file) and file listings (modx_get_component_files). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the object is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to choose this over modx_get_component_files (listing) or modx_read_media_source_file, and no stated preconditions such as the component needing to be installed or whether the path is relative to the component root. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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