studio_templates_listList the design shapes GridGarden Studio supports, with the dimension parameters each one needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templates | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description confirms a read operation. It adds that the tool lists shapes and dimension parameters, but no further behavioral details are needed.
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, clear sentence that conveys the purpose without any extraneous information.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's functionality. It explains what the tool does and what the response includes.
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, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output will contain (shapes and dimension parameters), though schema coverage is 100%.
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 it lists design shapes and their dimension parameters. The sibling tools involve BOM, catalog bricks, and pricing quotes, so this tool is distinctly about template listing.
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 usage for retrieving supported shapes, but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or contrast with siblings. However, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct roles: listing templates, listing products, computing a price, and creating a cart. The only potential confusion is between studio_pricing_quote and studio_bom_to_cart, but their descriptions clarify that one returns a quote while the other builds a cart.
All tools share the 'studio_' prefix, but the naming conventions vary: 'bom_to_cart' uses a phrase with 'to', while 'catalog_bricks', 'pricing_quote', and 'templates_list' mix noun-noun and gerund-noun patterns. There is no consistent verb_noun structure.
With exactly 4 tools, the set is tightly scoped to the server's purpose: exploring designs, seeing available components, calculating prices, and initiating a purchase. Each tool adds distinct value and none feel redundant.
The tools cover the full user journey from template discovery to final checkout, including product catalog access and pricing. No obvious missing operations are needed for the stated domain of configuring and ordering GridGarden Brick Premium beds.