rhino_cmd_fillet_surface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says a fillet surface is created and a command result dict is returned, but it does not disclose whether the original surfaces are modified, whether exactly two surfaces must be selected, what happens if selection is invalid, or how radius is interpreted. This is insufficient for a mutation-style 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 concise and front-loads the main purpose. However, the Args/Returns block duplicates information already in the schema and includes a controller argument that does not match the input schema. This makes the structure less clean than it appears.

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 tool with no annotations and one parameter, the description should still clarify selection requirements, side effects, and expected usage. It only provides the basic operation and radius. The output schema may cover return values, but the behavioral and prerequisite gaps make this incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only restates 'radius: Fillet radius,' adding no units, valid range, or behavior expectations. It also introduces a 'controller: RhinoController instance' argument that is absent from the input schema, creating ambiguity about how the agent should provide or configure this value.

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: 'Create a fillet surface between two selected surfaces.' This clearly conveys the tool's action. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling rhino_fillet_surface or adjacent surface-blending tools like rhino_blend_surface and rhino_variable_fillet.

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 phrase 'between two selected surfaces' implies the usage context: the agent must have exactly two surfaces selected before invoking the tool. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the vague 'selected surfaces' phrasing.

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