modx_system_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Calling this 'info' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation and the enumerated contents tell the agent what the payload contains, but it never states side-effect freedom, auth requirements, or output shape explicitly. Adequate for a zero-parameter report tool, not rich.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the category ('Environment/diagnostic info') and then lists the concrete fields. Zero waste and no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must communicate the return contents, and it does so field by field. For a zero-parameter diagnostic call the only genuine gap is the absence of any statement about when the agent should prefer it over modx_get_site_state or modx_project_overview.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the enumerated return contents add a little context about what the call produces.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (MODX version, modxMCP version, PHP version, db type, key paths), which is specific enough to distinguish an environment-report tool from generic readers. It does not, however, differentiate it from close siblings like modx_get_site_state or modx_project_overview, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 word 'diagnostic' hints at a troubleshooting context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With many sibling tools returning overlapping system/environment data, the agent gets no routing guidance.

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