modx_versionx_get_version

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys read-only inspection implicitly through 'Read', but says nothing about what the payload contains (raw content vs. diff), whether permissions or a VersionX-enabled element type are required, or how the result differs per type.

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 redundant wording — the purpose and the motivating decision both land in eleven words. Its terseness is efficient rather than padded, though it leans toward under-specification given the parameter surface.

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 three-required-parameter lookup with an enum, no annotations, no output schema, and several hundred sibling tools, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell what the returned payload looks like or how to interpret 'type' versus 'content_id' before committing to the call.

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% across three required parameters. The description says 'version payload' which loosely gestures at version_id, but it adds no meaning for content_id, for the six-value 'type' enum (resource/chunk/snippet/template/plugin/tv), or for how type and content_id combine to locate the record.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one VersionX version payload'), which clearly separates it from the sibling modx_versionx_list_versions (many) and modx_versionx_revert_version (write). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

'before deciding whether to revert to it' implies the workflow (inspect prior to modx_versionx_revert_version) but never states it as an instruction or names the revert tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, e.g., that listing versions should precede this call to obtain version_id.

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