Get Bookmarks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: bookmarks are tree-scoped and shared by all users, they are created outside this server (Gramps Web/desktop) so this tool cannot set them, and a tree may legitimately return none. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return format, then a second sentence covering ownership/origin caveats and an alternative-routing clause. It is dense but every clause carries information; the type enumeration makes the first sentence long, though that detail is arguably load-bearing.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return contract (grouped by type, one-line summary plus handle) and the empty-result case. Combined with the crisp sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description correctly implies a parameterless, tree-scoped call and adds no misleading input expectations.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (records bookmarked in this tree) and goes further by naming the exact grouping and output shape (one-line summary with its handle). The nine bookmark types are enumerated, so an agent knows precisely what comes back without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names three alternatives with the condition that selects each: search for records by name, list_objects to browse one type, get_recent_changes for recent edits. It also gives a positive when-to-use ('start from the records the tree's users marked'), which is exactly the routing an agent needs among these siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.