nx_list_features

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' does indicate a non-mutating operation, but no additional behavioral context is given—such as what happens if no work part is active, whether it returns an empty tree, or if there are any side effects. It is minimally transparent but not deeply informative.

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 description is one short sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and the target resource, and every word earns its place.

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 tool, the description is mostly complete: an agent knows what to call and why. It could be slightly more complete by describing the return format or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, this is not 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Schema description coverage is effectively 100%, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no deduction is warranted.

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 resource ('current work part feature tree'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like nx_create_part, nx_extrude, and nx_get_session_state. An agent can determine exactly what this tool does without needing additional context.

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 description implies its usage: call it when you need the current work part's feature tree. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool, but there is no explicit guidance about related tools.

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