xd_get_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden. To its credit it discloses the shape of the return value in useful detail (interaction records plus a Mermaid flowchart), which compensates for the missing output schema. It says nothing about read-only semantics, cost/scale for large files, or failure modes such as files without prototypes.

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?

One densely packed sentence, front-loaded with the concept and enumerating output contents without filler. It is a noun fragment rather than a verb clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both what is returned and the structure of the return (interaction records + Mermaid graph). It is only missing the boundary against xd_get_interactions and any note about prototype-less files.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute path to a .xd file'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no file-related detail, but none is needed at this parameter count.

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 specifies the resource precisely: a prototype flow map covering interactions, triggers, transitions, destinations, source screen/layer, home screen, and a Mermaid diagram of screen links. An agent can infer this is the flow/graph view rather than raw per-artboard data. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling xd_get_interactions, which is the most likely confusion point.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., file must contain a prototype), and no named alternative such as xd_get_interactions or xd_list_artboards. Usage must be inferred entirely from the output inventory.

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