xd_find_layers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail — color matching uses 'a small tolerance' — but omits whether filters combine as AND/OR, whether matching is substring or exact, case sensitivity, and that results are capped by the undocumented limit (default 50, max 500).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, that enumerates every filter dimension with concrete examples and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 7-param search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves two agent-relevant questions open: how multiple filters combine, and what the results look like (layer objects vs ids) or that they are truncated by `limit`. Adequate for a low-risk read, but not complete.

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 coverage is 43% across 7 params. The description adds real meaning for color (format plus tolerance) and gives type examples, which the schema leaves as a bare string. It says nothing about the `name`, `text`, or `limit` parameters, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (search) and resource (layers) plus the exact filter dimensions: text content, layer name, type with enumerated examples, and color. An agent can distinguish this from xd_list_artboards or xd_extract_text without opening the schema, though the description never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'search' plus the filter list; there is no statement of when to prefer this over xd_extract_text (text extraction) or xd_list_artboards (scoping by artboard). No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to infer routing 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.