fillet_edges_by_geometry

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the geometric filter logic but omits behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., the body being modified in place), whether the operation is destructive/reversible, or potential failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap, but the description does not mislead; it accurately describes the fillet action and parameter effects. Adding return value or error behavior would increase 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 extremely concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by three bullet-like parameter notes. No wasted words; every line adds unique information. The front-loaded purpose sentence immediately clarifies what the tool does, and the parameter lines follow logically.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the main function and three parameters but leaves out context for other parameters, fails to mention that the operation modifies the body, and lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., does the body need to be selected? what happens if no edges match?). Comparable sibling tools like chamfer_edges_by_geometry likely have similar patterns, but this description could be richer.

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 description explains three of six parameters (parallel_to, radius, min_length_mm) with concrete details (e.g., radius expression format, parallel_to allowed values, min_length_mm purpose). However, body, name, and is_tangent_chain are not explained. Schema coverage is effectively 50% (3/6), which is not high, so the description partially compensates but leaves ambiguity for the remaining parameters. The value added for the covered parameters is solid.

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 fillets edges of a body using a geometric filter, distinguishing it from the sibling fillet_edges by noting 'no UI selection needed.' The verb 'fillet' and resource 'edges of a body' are specific, and the geometric filter approach is unique among 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 when to use this tool: when geometric filtering is desired instead of UI selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the contrast with 'no UI selection needed' and the presence of sibling tools like fillet_edges and chamfer_edges_by_geometry provides clear context. Could be improved by explicitly stating 'use this instead of fillet_edges when...' but current guidance is adequate.

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