List the dough recipe styles plan_bake supports. Call this when a user names a style (Neapolitan, classica, focaccia, bread, baguette) so you pass the correct recipeSlug instead of guessing — and so you never confuse a style word like 'classica' with a flour whose name contains it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'List.' It adds contextual value by explaining that the output feeds plan_bake's recipeSlug and by highlighting a common failure mode. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage trigger with examples follows directly. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, when to call it, and why it matters. The mention of recipeSlug makes the intended return value clear enough.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter detail, and mentioning recipeSlug gives relevant output-related context without misleading about inputs.
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 and resource: 'List the dough recipe styles plan_bake supports.' It also differentiates itself from flour-related siblings by warning not to confuse a style word like 'classica' with a flour name, making the tool's scope immediately clear.
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 explicitly states when to call the tool: whenever a user names a recipe style, so the agent passes the correct recipeSlug instead of guessing. It also provides an implicit exclusion by warning against confusing style words with flours, but it does not name the alternative flour-search tool explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct domain object or action: flour lookup/detail, oven lookup, recipe style enumeration, bake planning, active bake listing, and troubleshooting. Even search_flours and get_flour_details are clearly separated into discovery vs. deep detail, so there is no real ambiguity.
Most tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as search_flours, get_flour_details, list_recipes, and plan_bake. The bare verb 'troubleshoot' breaks the pattern slightly, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a baking planning domain and covers the core workflow from ingredient and equipment lookup to planning and troubleshooting. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat or a too-thin surface.
The set covers the main bake-planning workflow well: find flour and oven, choose a recipe style, plan the bake, and get troubleshooting help. Minor gaps exist around managing active bakes beyond listing them and lack of a dedicated recipe detail endpoint, but agents can work around these.