Rounds the corner where two entities meet in an open sketch at specified X/Y coordinates, using a given radius in millimeters.
Rounds the corner of the open sketch at (x, y) (the point where two entities meet) with the given radius (mm).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radius_mm | Yes | Fillet radius in mm | |
| corner_x_mm | Yes | ||
| corner_y_mm | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds that it operates on an open sketch and requires two meeting entities, but does not disclose failure behavior, geometric constraints, or what happens if the radius exceeds available space.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses. Every phrase contributes useful information about the operation.
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 simple three-parameter signature, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential operation and prerequisite well. It leaves some edge-case behavior unstated, but not enough to prevent correct invocation.
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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies that (x, y) is the corner where two entities meet and confirms the radius unit, though it does not further specify coordinate system or radius constraints.
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 states a specific verb and resource: rounding a corner in an open sketch. It also identifies the geometric target as the point where two entities meet and distinguishes this from the solid-body sibling `fillet` by scoping the operation to a sketch.
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?
Usage context is clear: it applies to an open sketch at a corner where two entities meet, and requires a radius. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over `fillet` or what to do if no suitable corner exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.