Decompose selected polysurfaces, blocks, or groups into individual components for further editing.
Explode selected polysurfaces, blocks, or groups into component parts.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the original objects are deleted, whether it is destructive, whether selections are required, or what happens to nested blocks/groups. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 core description is one concise, front-loaded sentence. The 'Args: controller' line is redundant and inconsistent with the empty schema, which prevents a perfect score, but the overall size is appropriate.
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 an operation that modifies the model, the description is too sparse: no selection requirements, no destructiveness warning, no mention of how components are returned. The presence of an output schema slightly reduces the need to document returns, but the behavioral essentials are still missing.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden to carry. The description's mention of a controller arg in the docstring is inconsistent with the empty schema but harmless. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Explode' and names the resources: polysurfaces, blocks, groups. It clearly states the operation and target, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like rhino_block_explode and rhino_explode_block, which overlap substantially in audience.
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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There are sibling tools dedicated to exploding blocks (rhino_block_explode, rhino_explode_block), and the description does not clarify whether to use this generic tool for blocks or prefer those, nor mention any prerequisites like selecting objects first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.