add_mesh_fillet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behaviors: edge detection and triangle insertion, purpose (reduce stress concentration, improve printability), and side effects on output. It also mentions the interactive 3D stage side effect, including decimation of oversized meshes, which is valuable. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, followed by usage guidance, parameter documentation, and a note about the 3D stage. It is detailed but each sentence adds value; no filler. The inline 3D stage note is extra but relevant and concise.

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 moderately complex tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, how it works, when to use, parameters, return value (dict with sharp edge count, triangles added, and output path), and the 3D stage side effect. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description explicitly explains each parameter in a :param block: file_path (path to STL), radius_mm (fillet radius with default), angle_threshold_deg (edge sharpness threshold), and output_path (output location with default). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties, fully compensating 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 it adds fillets (rounded transitions) at sharp edges of a mesh, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_mesh_chamfer' (which adds chamfers) and other mesh operations, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use after design_scorecard() flags sharp corners or predict_print_failures() detects stress risers.' This clearly suggests the context and triggers, and implicitly differentiates it from alternative operations like chamfering by focusing on fillets for stress reduction and printability.

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