servicebus_peek_dlq

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

Discloses that messages are not locked or consumed (read-only), returns metadata including dead letter reason, and describes authentication behavior. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden and does it well.

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?

Two concise paragraphs with front-loaded main action. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficiently communicates key points.

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?

Covers purpose, usage constraints, auth, return values, and alternative tool. With an output schema present, the description of return values is a bonus. Complete for a peek tool.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning for connection_string_env_var (env var name and auth fallback) and mentions max_count cap. Namespace and queue are not elaborated but are self-explanatory from context.

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 'Non-destructively peek at messages in the dead letter queue for an Azure Service Bus queue,' specifying both the action and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like servicebus_peek_dlq_to_file by noting the read-only nature.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (non-destructive peek), mentions max_count is capped at 100, and provides an alternative tool for large message bodies. Also clarifies authentication mechanism via environment variable vs DefaultAzureCredential.

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