nx_list_attributes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "read back" correctly signals a non-mutating read, which is the key safety signal. However, it says nothing about behavior when no part is open or when no attributes exist (empty list vs error), so edge-case transparency is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the disambiguating parenthetical is placed where it earns its space. It is minimal but not padded.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema describing the return values, the description is close to complete. The only shortfall is the unstated precondition that a part must be open/session active.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit 'which part' scoping, which the phrase "set on the part" already conveys adequately.

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+resource combination ("Read back all user attributes set on the part") and the parenthetical "(title-block content)" disambiguates it from the similarly named nx_list_annotations and nx_list_dimensions siblings. It is clear what it returns, though it never explicitly names the sibling it is not.

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 statement of when to use this versus nx_list_annotations or nx_list_dimensions, and no precondition such as requiring an open part. Usage is only inferable from the tool's name and the word "Read back".

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