Search the Pandough baking knowledge base for troubleshooting advice, technique guides, and flour science. Returns curated expert content about common baking issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | Yes | The baking issue or question (e.g. 'sticky dough', 'no oven spring', 'cold proof technique') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it searches a 'knowledge base' and 'returns curated expert content,' but it does not describe search behavior, result formatting, or any limitations. Since the safety profile is already declared, this is adequate but not rich.
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 concise sentences and front-loads the core action and topic. The second sentence adds return-value context about curated expert content, though it partially restates the first sentence's 'troubleshooting advice.' Overall it is efficient and well-structured.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only search tool, the description is complete enough to guide invocation. It explains the knowledge base domain, the type of content returned, and the issue focus. Without an output schema, it does not detail response structure, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.
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 schema fully describes the single 'issue' parameter with an example, so parameter semantics are already covered. The description indirectly refers to the parameter by mentioning 'common baking issues' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Pandough baking knowledge base for troubleshooting advice, technique guides, and flour science.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_flours and search_ovens by focusing on baking problems and expert content. The title 'Troubleshoot Dough' reinforces the purpose.
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 implies the tool should be used for baking issues or questions ('troubleshooting advice', 'common baking issues'), which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as search_flours for flour-specific lookups. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.