nx_list_sketches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read and 'active work part' implies scoping to the open part, but it never says what happens with no active part, whether results are flat or nested, or whether the list can be empty — behavior that matters for a discovery tool on a session-scoped modeler.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. For a zero-parameter list call there is no wasted text.

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 output schema covers return values and there are no parameters to document, so the description's burden is small. Still, it says nothing about the precondition of an open part or how this list relates to the sibling list_* tools, which is the remaining gap for an agent operating across a large CAD toolset.

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 baseline of 4 applies. The mention of the 'active work part' implicitly explains the one piece of implicit context that governs the call.

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 ('List sketches') and scopes it to the active work part, which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings like nx_create_sketch. It does not, however, contrast itself with the other list_* tools (list_bodies, list_features, list_edges), leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the noun alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. a part must be open), and no mention of alternatives such as listing features or bodies instead. The single sentence gives no routing help at all.

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