xd_list_artboards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation by 'list' and usefully discloses the performance tradeoff of includeGeometry on big files, but it does not state read-only guarantees, permission/auth needs, or failure behavior for a missing or invalid .xd path.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and return fields come first, and the optional-parameter cost note follows, which is the right front-loading.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must enumerate return values, and it does (ids, names, document name, optional geometry). A minor gap remains around error/empty-file behavior, but for a two-parameter read tool the definition is nearly 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 only 50%: 'file' is documented in the schema while 'includeGeometry' is not. The description fills that gap by explaining includeGeometry requests canvas position and size, but adds nothing about the required 'file' parameter's expectations beyond the schema text.

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 and resource (list artboards in an Adobe XD file) and enumerates the return fields (ids, names, document name). An agent can distinguish this bulk-listing tool from the singular xd_get_artboard sibling without opening the schema.

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 description explains the includeGeometry option and flags its cost on large files, which is real guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as xd_get_artboard for a single artboard or xd_list_entries for other entity types, so tool selection is left to inference.

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