nx_list_bodies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'list,' which implies read-only, but it never states that the part is not modified, what happens when no part is active, or whether hidden/blanked bodies are included.

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 or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the action and scope.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the target resource and active-part context. The main gap is the lack of any behavioral caveat, such as requiring an open part or describing edge cases.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add to parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('List'), resource ('bodies'), and scope ('active work part'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like nx_list_sketches and nx_list_features by resource type, so an agent can select the correct tool without needing more detail.

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 active-work-part scope provides clear context and an implicit prerequisite, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say, for example, to use nx_list_features for features or what to do when no active part exists.

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