xd_get_shared_assets

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers almost none of it. It doesn't confirm this is a read-only operation, whether the file must be open or closed in XD, or whether it works on cloud vs local documents.

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 short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise, and the most useful information — that these assets are document-level libraries scoped to one file — is buried in a leading label rather than framed as a capability.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is roughly sufficient to attempt a call. It falls short on the sibling-overlap question, which is the most likely source of a mis-invocation in this crowded XD toolset.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully as the absolute path to a .xd file at 100% coverage. The description adds no path formatting, file-state, or error-condition context beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names the resource precisely — saved color swatches, library colors, and character styles — so the agent knows what data comes back. But it's a bare noun phrase with no verb and no statement of scope against near-identical siblings like xd_get_design_tokens or xd_get_design_system, which appear to cover overlapping color/typography territory.

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?

Nothing states when to call this versus xd_get_design_tokens or xd_get_design_system, which is the central ambiguity given the overlap in what they likely return. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context beyond the asset list.

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