get_parties

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 a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose whether the tool requires authentication, what happens on invalid docket_id, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral constraints.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, it could be slightly restructured to include more context without sacrificing conciseness, e.g., specifying it returns a list.

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 is simple (one required param, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or pagination. An agent may not know that multiple parties can be returned or what 'attorneys' includes. Completeness is lacking for effective use.

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% (only one parameter 'docket_id' is documented in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'CourtListener numeric docket ID'. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('parties and their attorneys for a docket'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_docket' which likely returns docket metadata. However, it does not use a more precise verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and the scope is implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_docket' or 'search_dockets'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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