nx_list_sketches

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. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness, required state (an active work part), or what happens if no part is open. No mention of return format or side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and the resource ('sketches'). There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. It 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 simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is adequate but incomplete. It mentions 'active work part' but doesn't clarify prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., what if no part is active). It lacks any usage context that would help the agent decide when to call it. Given the simplicity, a 3 reflects that it meets the minimum but leaves gaps.

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 per the baseline rule, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add any parameter-related detail, which is fine.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sketches') with a context ('active work part'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nx_create_sketch and nx_finish_sketch, which imply creation or completion. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an open part) or suggest scenarios like 'before creating a sketch' or 'to review existing sketches'. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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