get_dockets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that filings are in chronological order, the header content, filtering support, and cost behavior. However, it omits details on pagination, sorting options (beyond default), and the behavioral implications of include_documents or other parameters, leaving gaps in fully predicting tool behavior.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by essential details on content, filters, and cost. Every sentence earns its place without redundant or fluff language.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid high-level overview but is not fully complete. It lacks explicit guidance on pagination, sorting behavior, and the exact output structure beyond mentions of header fields and document info. The schema fills some gaps, but the description alone is insufficient for a fully informed invocation.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by summarizing the filter capabilities (keyword search, date/number ranges) and cost implications of include_live_pacer. However, with schema description coverage at 54%, the description only partially compensates for undocumented parameters like page_size, sort_order, and docket_number_from, not detailing their exact usage or interplay.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the docket sheet for a case'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_case (case details) and get_document (individual documents) by specifying the docket sheet content, including filings, dates, descriptions, and attached document info.

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 to use the tool (for obtaining a docket sheet) and notes filtering capabilities like keyword search and date/number ranges. It also hints at cost implications with 'Free unless include_live_pacer=true'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, lacking explicit exclusions.

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