xd_list_components

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; "List" implies a safe read, and it usefully discloses the returned fields (id, name, size) in the absence of an output schema. It does not mention whether the file must be open/local, whether errors occur on invalid paths, or what 'size' means (pixels? bounding box?).

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 names the resource, scopes it, and enumerates the return fields. No filler and nothing an agent must scan past.

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-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it identifies the resource, the file scope, and the response shape. Minor gaps remain around library vs file-local components and error behavior, but the essential calling information is present.

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?

The single `file` parameter is documented at 100% schema coverage ("Absolute path to a .xd file"), so the schema already does the work. The description adds only the implicit relation that components are read from that file, no format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 the reusable components (symbols)") plus the scope ("defined in the file") and the returned fields. That scope wording distinguishes it from library-wide siblings such as xd_get_shared_assets, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives among the many xd_* siblings (e.g. xd_get_shared_assets, xd_get_design_system, xd_list_artboards). Usage is only inferable from the one-line purpose.

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