list_toolsList Wedding Seat's free planning tools (seating chart, guest list, budget, checklist, invitation wording) with their public URLs. Grounding/read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'Grounding/read-only', which usefully discloses the tool's non-destructive nature. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it adequately conveys safe, read-only behavior.
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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, use, and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple list function, the description adequately covers the key aspects: the content of the list and the output format (URLs). It could mention the structure of the response, but overall it is complete.
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 no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there is nothing to describe.
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 tool lists free planning tools with public URLs, providing specific examples (seating chart, guest list, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on creation, addition, or generation.
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 is for read-only grounding purposes, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are sufficiently different, so confusion is unlikely.
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.