nx_list_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read-only listing, which is useful, but it does not disclose what happens if no part is active, whether the list is ordered, or what the output structure looks like. The behavior is simple enough that this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, short sentence that states the action and the target resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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 list tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and the scope. However, it does not mention what the output schema contains or any error conditions (e.g., no active part), and with no annotations, a bit more context about the expected result would improve completeness.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly identifies the scope ('active work part'), which is the only contextual input the agent needs. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('features in the active work part'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nx_list_sketches and nx_list_bodies by naming the resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 usage context: it operates on the active work part, so an agent can infer it should be used when features need to be enumerated. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nx_list_sketches or nx_list_bodies, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an active part open.

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