list_culture_packsList the available wedding culture packs (key, English name, cluster, sides). Use a pack key as the culture argument to create_wedding_project. Grounding/read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It includes 'Grounding/read-only', indicating no side effects, but lacks details on other behaviors like authentication or rate limits.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part serves a purpose: listing, describing output, and linking to another tool.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and usage tie-in. It lists output fields but could explicitly state the return structure (e.g., array of objects).
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining how the output (pack key) connects to create_wedding_project, going beyond the schema.
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 'List the available wedding culture packs' and specifies the fields returned (key, English name, cluster, sides), providing a specific verb+resource and distinguishing it from siblings.
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 instructs to use the pack key as the 'culture' argument for create_wedding_project, offering clear context. It also labels the tool as 'Grounding/read-only', but does not explicitly mention when not to use.
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 action: adding guests, creating project, generating seating, getting summary, listing culture packs, or listing tools. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., add_guests, create_wedding_project, list_tools). No deviations.
6 tools is well-scoped for a wedding planning assistant, covering core operations without being excessive or insufficient.
Covers main workflow (create project, add guests, generate seating, view summary) but lacks update/delete for guests or manual seating adjustments. Minor gaps.