servicebus_peek_messages_to_file

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

Discloses non-destructive nature, file output, metadata-only return in context, and dual authentication options (env var vs DefaultAzureCredential). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and meets 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 no redundant content. Purpose in first sentence, use case and auth details efficiently grouped. Front-loaded with critical info.

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 context, behavior, and authentication. With output schema existing, return format is handled. Lacks error handling or file overwrite behavior, but overall sufficient for agent decision-making.

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, but description adds significant meaning: explains `connection_string_env_var` in detail (auth switching), clarifies `output_file` purpose, and implies the role of other params. Missing individual param descriptions, but overall adds value.

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?

Clearly states 'Non-destructively peek at messages in an Azure Service Bus queue, saving bodies to a file.' Distinguishes from related tools by specifying the file-saving behavior and large-body use case.

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 advises when to use this variant ('when message bodies may be large to avoid filling the context window'), implying when to use the regular peek instead. Could be stronger with explicit 'do not use when...' but sufficient.

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