list_reports

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description goes further by disclosing output structure — each entry names the option keys it accepts. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 core statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by workflow guidance. The enumeration of report types is illustrative rather than essential, but it is compact and helps the agent recognize the scope of the report engine.

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, so the description must carry the return-value burden; it does so partially by stating that entries expose option keys. Combined with the named follow-up tool, this is sufficient for a zero-parameter list tool, though ordering/shape of the list is not spelled out.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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 immediately distinguishes the tool from its report-running siblings by naming the sample report types and pointing at get_report_options. An agent can tell this is a discovery/enumeration tool 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?

Routes the agent to the follow-up step: 'read the defaults with get_report_options before overriding any.' That is clear workflow context, but it stops short of explicitly stating when this tool is chosen over alternatives such as run_report.

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