create_section_analysisCut a section plane through a Fusion 360 model to inspect internal geometry. Choose XY, YZ, or XZ plane and set an offset in cm.
Cut a section plane through the model
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plane | No | yz | |
| offset | No | Offset from the plane (cm) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action. It implies a creation or analysis outcome but does not detail effects like visual changes, data generation, or interaction with the model. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description offers limited value beyond them.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It covers the basic action but omits details on output format, side effects, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations providing safety hints, the description is complete enough for basic use but could be more informative.
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 50% (only 'offset' has a description), and the description does not add meaning for parameters beyond the schema. It mentions 'plane' and 'offset' implicitly but provides no extra details on usage, constraints, or effects. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for gaps.
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 action ('cut a section plane') and the target ('through the model'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_construction_plane' or 'get_object_info'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'split_body' or 'trim_surface' could involve cutting), so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_construction_plane' for reference geometry or 'get_scene_info' for analysis. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.