docket_stats

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

The description implies a read-only operation by listing counts and claims, but does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. With no annotations to rely on, the description should be more explicit about behavioral guarantees.

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 that lists key outputs, making it concise and to the point. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the list with bullets), but it has no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description provides the main outputs, but terms like 'cursors' and 'open claims' are not explained. The description is adequate for understanding the general purpose, but leaves some ambiguity about the exact data returned.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. According to the rule, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description still adds value by explaining what the tool outputs.

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 lists what the tool returns (message count, per-sender counts, cursors, open claims), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like docket_tail or docket_search which have different purposes. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', which would improve clarity.

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 its siblings (e.g., docket_tail, docket_search). There is no context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or which scenarios it is best suited for.

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