In $\mathbb{R}^N$, I think of a Caccioppoli set as being a set with the following description:
(1) some points are (Lebesgue) density 0, essentially the exterior
(2) some are density 1, essentially the interior
(3) some are density 1/2, essentially the "smooth" part of the boundary
(4) some other points
Of course the three intuitions I gave are not precise, but I am looking for confirmation on my understanding of the 4th set of points, which I understand to consist essentially of corners. Is that a correct intuition, or can more complicated behavior arise?
"Consists essentially of corners" is too vague, especially considering how hairy the sets of finite perimeter can be, but your intuition is correct in the following sense: the set of points of type (4) has zero $(n-1)$-dimensional measure. This makes it negligible not only as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ but also as a subset of the boundary of our set.
For a set $E\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ introduce the following notation:
In your notation, $\partial^c E$ is the union of sets (3) and (4), and the main point is that (4) is much smaller than (3). Specifically, $$ \partial^*E \subset E^{(1/2)} \subset \partial^c E $$ and $$ \mathcal H^{n-1}(\partial^c E \setminus \partial^*E) = 0 $$ Source: Theorem 16.2 in Sets of Finite Perimeter and Geometric Variational Problems by Francesco Maggi, page 184. The theorem is due to Federer. Its message is that $\partial^*E$, $E^{(1/2)}$, and $\partial^c E$ do about the same job in terms of defining where the boundary of $E$ is.
For an example of a point that does not really look like a "corner", take $E$ to be the union of disjoint balls $B(a_k, r_k)$ where $a_k\to 0$ and $r_k\to 0$ under conditions that $$\sum r_k^{n-1} < \infty,\qquad \lim_{R\to 0}\frac{1}{R^n}\sum_{r_k < R} r_k^{n} \to c \in (0,1)$$ Then $0$ is probably going to be of type (4), but it does not look like a corner.