nx_list_dimensions

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

With no annotations, the description still communicates the essential behavior: this is a read-back operation, values are recovered from the model, and results are returned one entry per dimension in a stated format. It does not explicitly state absence of side effects or permission requirements, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the disclosed behavior is strong.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the return format and concrete usage examples. The format string earns its place by telling the agent exactly how entries are shaped, and there is no unnecessary filler.

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 zero input parameters, an output schema, and low mutation risk, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, usage context, data source, and return format without needing to duplicate the output schema.

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 has zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to clarify, and the schema is empty.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read back every dimension in the part,' and explicitly states the returned content is measured size and tolerance. This clearly distinguishes it from creation tools such as nx_create_dimension and from sibling list tools like nx_list_annotations.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts: verify dimensions just created, or read an existing NX 2D drawing to understand its specifications without opening the UI. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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