therapyportal_list_message_topics

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

The description provides three major behavioral details: it identifies the topics as being for a specific client, describes the scope (clinical, billing, administrative), and explicitly warns the AI about the nature of the returned text, advising it to treat the data as untrusted rather than actionable instructions. This is high-value context.

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 dense but highly informative. It avoids unnecessary jargon and front-loads the critical information (what the topic is, what its purpose is) before offering disclaimers. It only drops points because the final sentence is quite long.

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 output isn't explicitly defined via schema, the description is complete by detailing the scope of the information returned (topics, delivery mechanism, and client status). The warnings about the untrusted nature of the text are crucial for agent safety and reliability.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic value by explaining the 'view' parameter's impact on the returned information and clarifying the 'patient_id' dependency on another tool (therapyportal_list_clients).

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 clearly states the purpose: listing secure-message topics for a specific client in TherapyPortal. It connects this topic listing to the downstream sending action (therapyportal_send_message), making it highly specific and distinguishable from similar 'list' functions.

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?

It provides critical context on *why* one might need this list (e.g., to know if messages reach clinical vs. administrative staff) and an important limitation (whether the client has an assigned clinician). While it doesn't explicitly list 'when to call,' the implications are clear.

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