fillet_polyline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ALL corners are rounded and that CAD computes the result, but it does not state whether the original polyline is modified in place, whether the polyline must be closed, or what happens if the radius is invalid. The lack of side-effect information is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, concise and free of filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 mutating nature and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse for complete guidance. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool's preconditions (e.g., closed polyline, radius limits) and effects (in-place modification) are missing. An agent might invoke it incorrectly without these details.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does map 'radius' to the fillet radius and 'polyline' to the handle, adding meaning beyond raw types. However, it does not explain units, constraints (e.g., positive radius), or the format of the handle. This is minimal but adequate for a two-parameter tool.

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 action ('Fillet (round)') and the resource ('ALL corners of a polyline'), with the radius as the key parameter. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'chamfer_polyline' by explicitly saying 'round', which implies rounding rather than beveling.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description does not mention that this differs from chamfer_polyline or when to choose one over the other. The phrase 'CAD does the math' is a mild hint about automation but does not offer exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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