Cut a solid by extruding a wire curve through the object at a chosen depth, creating a cross-section slice in Rhino.
Cut a solid with a wire (curve) extruded through the object.
Args:
controller: RhinoController instance.
depth: Cut depth (extrusion distance of the wire).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | 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 full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the cut mechanism and depth, but does not state whether the operation is destructive, what happens to the original solid, whether it operates on the current selection, or what the result objects are. The undocumented 'controller' argument in the description also conflicts with the schema, adding confusion.
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 operation is front-loaded in one concise sentence and the parameter note is brief. The Args block includes a controller entry not reflected in the schema, which is minor noise but not padding.
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?
The tool performs a nontrivial modeling mutation with no annotations and no object parameters in the schema, yet the description never explains how the solid and wire are selected or what the expected document state is. A successful agent call requires inferring hidden selection semantics, which is a significant completeness 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds real meaning to the only schema parameter by explaining depth as the extrusion distance of the wire. It leaves units and direction unspecified, and it lists a controller parameter that does not appear in the schema, so it is not fully precise.
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 uses a specific verb ('Cut'), resource ('a solid'), and mechanism ('wire (curve) extruded through the object'), which makes the tool's core purpose understandable and distinguishable from many sibling modeling tools. It does not explicitly mention selection or the resulting split, so it stops short of full clarity.
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 intended use case—cutting a solid with a curve/wire—is implied by the first sentence, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not distinguish this from related operations such as rhino_split, rhino_boolean_split, or rhino_boolean_difference. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.