modx_search_packages

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; "search" implies a read-only, non-destructive call but this is never stated. It adds the useful fact that provider is optional and defaults to modx.com, yet says nothing about result set size, pagination behaviour implied by limit/start, or whether network access to the provider is required.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the sequencing hint follows immediately. Nothing is wasted or restated.

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 search with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but serviceable: it identifies the resource, the default scope, and the follow-up tool. It leaves the pagination contract and the shape of returned package records entirely to guesswork, which matters for an agent that must page through results.

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 must explain all four parameters, but it only clarifies provider (numeric, defaults to modx.com). It is silent on the format of query, the meaning of start, and the maximum/default value of limit, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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+resource pair, "search a provider's catalogue", which is clearly distinct from sibling modx_list_providers (which lists providers rather than their packages). It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_providers or list_installed_components, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete sequencing guidance ("use before install_package") and states the default provider (modx.com), which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It lacks any when-not guidance or note about what to do if a search returns nothing.

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