nx_list_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'List' implies a non-destructive read and the phrase 'active work part' hints at a prerequisite state, but there is no disclosure of ordering, pagination, or what qualifies as a feature.

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. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the context an agent might want.

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?

The tool is a parameterless read with an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The state prerequisite ('active work part') is at least implied, making the description sufficient for correct invocation, though a note on ordering or scope would round it out.

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; the schema is empty and fully covered. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (features) plus a scope (the active work part), which separates it from siblings like nx_list_sketches or nx_list_bodies. It stops short of explicitly stating how 'features' relates to those other entity lists, so the differentiation relies partly on the tool name.

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 phrase 'in the active work part' implies a part must already be open, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as nx_list_sketches for sketch geometry. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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