xd_extract_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits key traits of a file-writing operation: whether existing files in outDir are overwritten, how assets are named, and what happens on collisions or failures. Only the bare fact that files get written 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. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 two-parameter tool with fully described params and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, given the tool writes assets to disk in a crowded sibling set, more on output layout and side effects is needed for full confidence.

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 100%, so both `file` and `outDir` are already documented with absolute-path requirements. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: extract embedded images/resources from an XD file into an output directory. Clear on its own, but does not differentiate from siblings like xd_get_shared_assets or xd_export_component, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer xd_get_shared_assets or xd_export_component, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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