get_docket_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the output is a combined summary but does not disclose what 'key metadata' includes, error handling, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. More behavioral context is needed.

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 with no waste: first sentence defines the tool, second sentence suggests the use case. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a general idea of what the tool returns but lacks details on output format or potential constraints. It is adequate for a quick status check but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces the purpose of 'recent_entry_count' but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, resulting in baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'docket summary', specifying it combines key metadata with recent N filings. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_docket' (full docket) and 'get_new_filings' (filings only) by offering a combined summary.

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 a use case ('Ideal for a quick status check on a matter'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. It does not mention when to prefer other tools like 'get_docket' or 'get_parties'.

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