cad_sketch_fillet

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: trimming lines, dropping corner coincident, inserting arc, adding tangent constraints. It also specifies return value. Minor omission: no mention of assumptions like lines must intersect.

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?

Two sentences, highly efficient, front-loaded with action, no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers core behavior and return value, but lacks detail on parameter semantics, error conditions, and limitations. With 4 unannotated parameters and no output schema, more completeness is expected.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all parameters. Only 'radius' is explained (unit inches). 'sessionId', 'line1', 'line2' remain opaque; the description does not clarify that line1 and line2 are line entity IDs.

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 rounds a corner where two lines meet with a tangent arc, specifying the resource (corner of two lines) and action (round) uniquely among sibling tools like cad_fillet (3D edges).

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 versus alternatives (e.g., cad_chamfer or cad_fillet). The description only explains what it does, not the context or prerequisites.

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