xd_get_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior—the image is embedded, not rendered on demand, and it corresponds to the first artboard only—but it says nothing about the return form (base64/path/MIME), what happens if the file has no preview or is not an artboard-first document, or any error behavior.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the parenthetical qualifier placed where it disambiguates. Nothing to trim.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but the description does not explain what the returned 'preview image' looks like (inline data vs. URL) or the fallback when no embedded preview exists, and there is no output schema to cover that gap.

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 full schema coverage ('Absolute path to a .xd file'), so the schema already does all the work; the description adds no parameter detail but needs none. Baseline 4 applies for a 1-param tool at 100% coverage.

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?

Specific verb (return) plus specific resource (embedded preview image of the XD file), and the parenthetical '(first artboard render)' pins down exactly which image. It is distinguishable from xd_export_artboard because it returns an *embedded* preview rather than a fresh export, but the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 word 'embedded' and the '(first artboard render)' qualifier imply this is a cheap way to peek at a file without exporting, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no mention of xd_export_artboard as the alternative for arbitrary artboards.

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