Creates a hollow shell from a solid by removing selected faces and offsetting the remaining surfaces to a specified wall thickness.
Shell selected solid, removing one or more faces and offsetting the rest.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
thickness: Shell wall thickness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thickness | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does explain the main effect: faces are removed and the remaining solid is offset by a thickness. However, it does not state whether the original solid is destroyed, whether a new object is created, or whether faces must be pre-selected.
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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and effect, and the Argument section is brief and to the point. No redundant wording or filler is present.
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 solid-modifying command, the description leaves important operational details ambiguous: how faces to remove are chosen, what the user/agent must select beforehand, and whether the operation is destructive. The output schema may cover return values, but the missing selection/behavioral context makes correct invocation uncertain.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'thickness' as 'Shell wall thickness', which adds real meaning beyond the bare integer schema. It also lists a controller argument, though that parameter is absent from the schema; units or value ranges are not specified.
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 clear operation: 'Shell selected solid', with a behavioral qualifier ('removing one or more faces and offsetting the rest'). This is specific enough to identify the tool's core intent, though it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling 'rhino_shell'.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_shell, boolean operations, or other solid-editing commands. It implies a selected solid is required but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or selection steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.