docket_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states cursor advancement default, peek toggle effect, and refusal on active claim. This provides key behavioral traits, though it omits side effects like cursor reset or error handling.

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 extremely concise, using three short sentences. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and adds constraints efficiently without 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?

The description covers core behavior and constraints but lacks details on return format, no-messages scenario, and two undocumented parameters (limit, mentions_only). Given the absence of output schema and annotations, it is moderately 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 coverage is 50% (peek and topic have descriptions). The description adds semantic value for these two parameters: cursor advancement tied to peek, and refusal tied to topic. However, limit and mentions_only are left entirely undocumented, leaving a gap.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reading messages posted since last read. The verb 'read' and resource 'messages' are explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like docket_search or docket_tail by specifying the cursor advancement behavior and claim constraint.

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 implies when to use (for new messages since last read) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or compare with alternatives like docket_tail. It focuses on behavioral constraints rather than usage context.

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