simplepractice_session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, conveying safety. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by stating it 'Reads local state only — makes no network call,' which is a significant behavioral guarantee for an agent. It also explains how the practice value is resolved (sign-in link, SIMPLEPRACTICE_PRACTICE, or stored session), adding useful logic transparency.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence front-loads the core action ('Report whether...') and packs additional specifics about practice and provenance without verbose framing. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant text or filler.

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?

The description covers the essential return concepts (existence of session, practice identifier, determination mechanism) and notes the local-only read behavior, which is sufficient for a no-parameter, read-only tool. While it omits exact data types or response shape, the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by this high-level enumeration; a more detailed field breakdown would be nice but is not critical.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. As a no-parameter tool, the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than inputs.

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 leads with a specific verb ('Report') and a precise resource: whether the server holds a Client Portal session, for which practice, and how the practice was determined. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like simplepractice_sign_out (action) or simplepractice_list_documents (data listing), and a reader immediately knows what this tool does.

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 its use case by stating it reports session state and reads local state, so an agent can infer when to call it (e.g., before acting on a practice session). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related session tools like simplepractice_verify_sign_in_token or when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives.

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