Get Bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: bookmarks are tree-scoped and shared across users, are written only via Gramps Web/desktop and never through this server, may be empty, and are returned unpaged in a fixed type order with unreadable records surfaced as bare handles. That covers mutation expectations, emptiness, and result shape.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior, then routing. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the type enumeration and ordering clause make it longer than strictly necessary for an agent that will see the actual response.

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, and the description compensates by specifying the return shape: grouped by type, one-line summaries with handles, fixed type ordering, tree bookmark order, and bare-handle fallback for unreadable records. For a zero-parameter read tool this 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly does not invent any parameter discussion.

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 (bookmarked records in this tree) and enumerates the grouping types. It also explicitly names the sibling alternatives (search, list_objects, get_recent_changes), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ('Use it to start from the records the tree's users marked') and three explicit routing rules away from it: name lookup -> search, single-type browse -> list_objects, recent edits -> get_recent_changes. Nothing is left to inference.

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