manage_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that run is asynchronous ('generates a report in the background ... returning a task reference'), file is synchronous and returns base64, and result downloads a previously generated file. The 'Writes: run' marker adds a useful side-effect hint, though auth and cleanup behavior are not addressed.

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 description is long but every sentence adds necessary information for a six-parameter, five-action tool. The structure is well organized: overview, action-by-action semantics, argument list, and return summary. The most important action distinctions are front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thorough. It covers all six parameters, all action modes, return shape ('{"status", "url", "data": reports, task ref, or base64 file}'), and even explains how to provide the filename for result. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter, enumerates valid action values, clarifies when report_id is required, describes options as a JSON dict, notes locale defaults, and explains include_help and instance, including its source from get_instances.

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 opens with specific verbs and a resource: 'List, configure or generate Gramps reports' and enumerates five concrete actions. It clearly delimits what type of report operations are supported and differentiates the internal action modes without ambiguity.

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?

Each action is described with its exact HTTP endpoint and purpose, and parameter prerequisites are stated, e.g. 'report_id: Report id ... required for info, run, file, result'. It provides strong practical routing within the tool, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as manage_export.

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