rhino_fillet_surface

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Create' aligns with mutation. However, beyond stating constant-radius, no additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., destructive nature, result type, edge cases). The bar is lower due to annotations, but the description adds minimal value.

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 10-word sentence, concise but overly brief for a tool with 6 parameters and geometric complexity. It lacks necessary detail while being efficient, earning an average score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (constant-radius fillet with multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about preconditions, output, or limitations. It only covers the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% per context, and the description does not mention any parameters or their roles. The parameter names (surface_a_id, surface_b_id, radius) are self-explanatory, but the tool's single args object structure is not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool creates a constant-radius fillet between two surfaces, specifying the verb (Create), resource (fillet), and scope (between two surfaces). This distinctly separates it from siblings like rhino_blend_surface.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites (e.g., surface intersection). The description lacks any usage context despite many related sibling tools.

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