check_watched_dockets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses side effects (updating last-checked timestamp) and conditional behavior (triage based on sampling). However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., must have watched dockets), potential rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes meaning. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

While the description covers input behavior and side effects, it lacks any hint about the output/return structure (e.g., does it return new filings, classifications?). Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving a gap in completeness.

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?

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema; e.g., it mentions 'since_override' overriding the last-checked date, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100% and description doesn't significantly enrich semantics.

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 polls all watched dockets for new filings since last checked, with specific actions like updating timestamp and optional triage. The action 'poll all watched dockets' is distinct from siblings like 'get_new_filings' which likely fetches filings for a single docket, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. It implies batch checking but lacks explicit context on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_new_filings' or 'get_docket'.

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