List the four wedding website templates with their id, name, style and preview image.
Read-only: it creates no draft and stores nothing. Use it before create_wedding_draft when the couple has not chosen a look, or to show them the options.
Returns: an array of templates. Pass the chosen id as the template argument of create_wedding_draft, or omit that argument to accept the default.
| 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 the burden. It states 'Read-only: it creates no draft and stores nothing,' which fully discloses the lack of side effects. It also mentions the return type (array of templates), adding behavioral clarity beyond the bare statement.
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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies behavior and usage, and the third explains the return and how to use the output. No wasted words and front-loaded.
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 tool with no parameters and a simple return, the description covers everything: what it does, when to use it, that it's read-only, what it returns, and how to use the output (pass the id or omit for default). It even notes the alternative of omitting the argument, which is valuable context for the agent.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the schema, and it doesn't need to. It does indirectly reference how the output (the chosen id) is used as a parameter in create_wedding_draft, which is helpful context.
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 explicitly states it lists the four wedding website templates with id, name, style, and preview image. This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_wedding_draft, get_draft_status, and get_pricing by positioning it as a pre-step.
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 says 'Use it before create_wedding_draft when the couple has not chosen a look, or to show them the options.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and ties it to the workflow with the sibling tool.
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 has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: creation, status retrieval, pricing, and template listing. No ambiguity in which tool to call for a given task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_wedding_draft, get_draft_status, get_pricing, list_templates. Clear and uniform.
Four tools is well-scoped for the service's purpose—covering pre-purchase info, creation, and status checks without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
Core workflow is covered: templates, pricing, creation, and status. No update/delete exists, but this is explicitly by design, so the surface is complete for its intended use.
