list_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the reports are generated by a bundled engine (Ahnentafel, descendant reports, kinship, etc.) and each list entry carries the option keys it accepts. It does not discuss pagination or cost, but for a local read-only enumeration that is minor.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second sentence usefully conveys the breadth of the report catalogue. The enumeration of report types is somewhat long but earns its place by conveying scope; the closing sentence adds an actionable next step.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially — it tells the agent each entry names the option keys it accepts, which anticipates the follow-up get_report_options call. It does not describe the full shape of an entry (name, description fields), leaving a small gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by framing the output rather than any input.

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 and resource ('List the reports this Gramps instance can generate') and implicitly scopes it as a discovery/enumeration call distinct from run_report and get_report_options. An agent can tell what this returns and how it differs from the sibling report tools.

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 routes the agent to a sibling in a specific condition: 'read the defaults with get_report_options before overriding any.' This establishes the list → inspect options → run workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with run_report/export_backup.

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