xd_read_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is truncated to maxChars, which is non-obvious, but it does not describe error behavior for invalid entry paths, whether truncation is marked, or how path traversal failures are surfaced. For a read-only tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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 waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the path-drilling and truncation details follow in a logical order.

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?

Given a 4-parameter read tool with 75% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what matters: what is read, how to drill in, and truncation behavior. The main gap is that it never points to xd_list_entries as the way to discover valid archive entry paths, which an agent may need for arbitrary files.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful syntax for the path parameter (children.0.artboard.children.2) and explains maxChars truncation, partially compensating for the missing maxChars description in 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: reading a raw JSON entry from an .xd archive, with concrete examples like manifest and graphicContent.agc. It implicitly distinguishes itself as the low-level escape hatch versus higher-level siblings such as xd_get_artboard or xd_get_design_tokens, but never names an alternative 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?

The description implies usage through the optional dotted path and examples, so an agent can infer that this tool is for drilling into raw archive JSON. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over xd_get_artboard, xd_list_entries, or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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