xd_get_interactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool may return nothing when interactions are absent, but it does not describe read-only semantics, error behavior, or the return format beyond naming the source file 'interactions.json'.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the conditional outcome without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though the conditional clause is slightly awkward.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema getter, the description covers what is returned and the empty case. It omits how this differs from 'xd_get_flow' and does not clarify whether the output is raw file content or parsed data, leaving a meaningful gap for the agent.

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%, with the single 'file' parameter fully documented as an absolute path to a .xd file. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and resource ('prototype interactions / flows (interactions.json)'), so the agent knows what the tool retrieves. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'xd_get_flow', which plausibly returns similar prototype flow data.

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 phrase 'if the file has any' hints at a conditional outcome but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over 'xd_get_flow' or other siblings. There are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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