servicebus_peek_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, returns message bodies and metadata, caps max_count at 100, and details session handling and authentication. It does not cover error behavior or empty queue scenarios.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear opening statement followed by important details in separate sentences. No extraneous information.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers core functionality, constraints, and alternatives. It could include notes on performance or rate limits but is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It details connection_string_env_var, session_id, and mentions max_count cap, but does not explain the required parameters 'namespace' and 'queue', which are ambiguous for new users.

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 it is for non-destructively peeking messages in a Service Bus queue. It distinguishes from the sibling tool for large message bodies (peek_messages_to_file) and from other peek tools like peek_dlq, making its purpose distinct.

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 advises using the alternative tool for large bodies and explains session behavior (when to provide session_id vs omit). However, it does not compare against all relevant siblings like peek_dlq or peek_subscription, leaving some ambiguity.

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