Extract silhouette curves from selected surfaces or meshes to define outlines for visualization or fabrication.
Extract silhouette curves from selected surfaces or meshes.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
Returns:
Dict with command result.
| 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 the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'extract' and returns a generic 'Dict with command result.' It does not disclose whether new curve geometry is created, whether the source objects are modified, or how the silhouette is derived from the current view.
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 purpose sentence is concise and front-loaded. But the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' lines are boilerplate, and the Args line conflicts with the empty schema, so not every part of the description earns its place.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description states the input scope and the output schema can cover return details. Still, there are no annotations and no mention of whether the tool creates new objects, affects the document, or depends on view direction, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap.
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 zero parameters and full coverage, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. However, the description includes 'Args: controller: RhinoController instance,' which introduces an argument not present in the schema and adds confusion rather than useful parameter semantics.
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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Extract silhouette curves from selected surfaces or meshes.' This clearly identifies the operation and target geometry, and it distinguishes the tool from the many other curve-creation and analysis tools in the sibling list.
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 'from selected surfaces or meshes' gives clear context that objects must be pre-selected and that the tool operates on surfaces or meshes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct sibling competes with this operation, so the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.