nx_get_session_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'without changing NX,' which clearly communicates non-mutating behavior. It does not disclose error conditions or behavior when no part is loaded, but the core side-effect profile is transparent.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Read') and packs the resource and the key side-effect guarantee efficiently. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description provides the essential information: what is read and that it has no side effects. It lacks only minor context, such as whether a session must be active or what the return format looks like, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a significant gap.

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 parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the description needs to explain about arguments.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('current work-part, feature-count and modified state'), and explicitly states 'without changing NX,' which clearly distinguishes it from the many mutating sibling tools like nx_create_part, nx_extrude, and nx_fillet. An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only status tool.

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?

Usage is implied: you would use this tool to inspect the current session state without side effects. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over other read-only siblings such as nx_health or nx_get_capabilities, nor does it mention any prerequisites or 'when not to use' scenarios.

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