cad_fillet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the operation but doesn't state if it's destructive, permissions needed, or side effects. The radius format note is helpful but insufficient.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key details. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary words, but could include more structure.

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?

Given the complexity of six parameters (five required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain many input parameters and does not describe return values or error conditions.

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?

Only two parameters (edgeIds, radius) are explained in the description out of six. The schema has no descriptions, so the description must cover more. It adds meaning for radius (inches/expression) and edgeIds (deterministic ids) but neglects documentId, workspaceId, elementId, and name.

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 clearly states the tool fillets edges and references deterministic ids from cad_find_edges, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cad_chamfer and cad_sketch_fillet. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's for 3D parts, which could be inferred from context.

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?

It gives guidance that edge ids should come from cad_find_edges and radius can be a number or expression, but it doesn't specify when to use versus alternatives like chamfer or when not to use.

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