docket_tail

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: independence from cursor state. However, it does not mention read-only nature, performance, or side effects. For a simple tool, this is insufficient for complete transparency.

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?

Description is very concise with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. Could be slightly expanded to include output format, but for a simple tool it is appropriately sized.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details about the messages format or content, which could be important for the agent. It is sufficient for basic usage 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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The tool description only implies that 'n' is the number of messages, which is already clear from context. It adds no additional meaning like allowed range or units.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns the last N messages and is for orientation. It distinguishes from siblings like docket_read or docket_search by noting 'regardless of your cursor', implying it is not cursor-dependent. However, it does not explicitly name the resource as 'docket messages'.

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 phrase 'For orientation' implies usage context (quick overview), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No alternatives named, so the agent must infer from sibling tool names.

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