simplepractice_session_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the valuable detail that it makes no network call, which is beyond the annotation. It also explains what information is reported (session, practice, determination method), giving a complete picture of behavior without over explaining.

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 sentence, tightly packed with essential information: what it reports, the three ways practice is determined, and the local/no-network nature. Every word earns its place, and the key action is 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?

For a stateless diagnostic tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the scope of the check, the report content, and the absence of side effects. The sibling list underscores that this is a lightweight status check, and the description matches.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not document them. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 states exactly what the tool does: reports session existence, practice, and determination method. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource (Client Portal session), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status rather than actions like sign-in or sign-out.

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 provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate—checking session state—and notes it reads only local state, implying it's a safe, fast diagnostic. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling list.

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