xd_list_entries

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 says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether the listing is recursive, whether directories are included alongside files, or what form the entry names take (and thus how they feed into xd_read_raw). Only the low-risk verb 'List' hints at 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose lands before the parenthetical hint. Slightly terse for a tool with a file-path requirement, but nothing is wasted.

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?

It is a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description should at least characterize the return value (flat archive paths vs. nested tree) and how those entries relate to xd_read_raw. It is adequate to identify the tool but not to use its output without experimentation.

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 100% and the single 'file' parameter is already documented as an absolute path to a .xd file. The phrase 'XD archive' reinforces the mental model of the input but adds no format, path, or validation detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource: list every file inside the XD archive. That is distinguishable from xd_list_artboards and xd_list_components, which enumerate logical design objects rather than archive entries. It does not name those siblings, but the resource is concrete enough to pick correctly.

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 parenthetical '(for debugging / finding raw data)' implies when to reach for it, but gives no explicit exclusions and never names xd_read_raw as the natural follow-up or xd_project_overview as the higher-level alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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