simplepractice_list_documents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds a useful scope qualifier ('files the practice has shared') but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or return shape. This is acceptable given the annotation, but not rich.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. Its scope is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, even though the sentence is grammatically a noun phrase rather than a full clause.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, this is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, no discussion of pageSize, and no explicit disambiguation from document-request siblings, an agent still has to make assumptions about the return shape and exact use case.

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 description contains no parameter information, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The pageSize parameter's default and maximum constraints are visible in the schema, but the description does nothing to explain or add meaning to it.

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 identifies the resource as files the practice has shared through the Client Portal, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_document_requests. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement and does not name the sibling it is not.

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?

The description implies a read-only listing use case from the resource wording and the readOnlyHint, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer when to pick this over list_document_requests or other document-related tools.

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