xd_ping

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses what the tool reports and that a file can be test-opened. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or otherwise non-destructive, nor does it describe permissions or side effects of the self-test.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the checks without filler. Every clause contributes diagnostic detail, and the optional file behavior is clearly separated at the end.

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 low-complexity diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the important checks and optional file behavior. It could be slightly more complete by stating whether the checks are read-only or what the self-test reports, but the core 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 optional parameter is already fully documented in the schema as an optional .xd file to test-open. The description reinforces the behavior — passing a file checks that it opens — but adds no syntax or constraints 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?

The description states a specific purpose — a health check — and enumerates exactly what it diagnoses: server version, allowed folders, runtime/platform, browser availability for xd_render_artboard, and parser/exporter self-tests. This clearly distinguishes it from the design-reading and export siblings.

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 health-check framing implies diagnostic or troubleshooting use, and the description explains that passing a file triggers an additional open test. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of calling other tools, or when not to use it.

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