simplepractice_session_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already conveys read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context that it 'Reads local state only — makes no network call,' which is important for an agent to understand efficiency and side-effect-free execution. This goes beyond the annotation, justifying a 4.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about local state follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and its side-effect-free nature, which is all that is needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4 because there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('whether this server holds a Client Portal session, and for which practice'). It clearly defines the tool's function and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like sign-in or sign-out, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the context (checking session status) implies it is for verifying whether a session exists. It lacks explicit guidance on when to call this vs. other session-related tools, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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