servicebus_peek_subscription_dlq

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: non-destructive, read-only, no locking or consumption, max_count cap at 100, and auth mechanism via environment variable. It also lists return content (message bodies, DLQ reason, error description, metadata). Lacks details on error handling or timeout behavior but is largely transparent.

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 concise (~100 words), front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured with key points in short paragraphs. No redundant or vague sentences; every line adds value.

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?

For a peek tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, cap, alternative tool, and auth. It omits pagination details and what happens when no messages are available, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description must compensate. It clarifies max_count (capped at 100) and connection_string_env_var (purpose and auth behavior). However, it does not elaborate on namespace, topic, or subscription beyond their names, leaving some interpretation to the agent.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Non-destructively peek at messages in the dead letter queue for a topic subscription.' It specifies the verb (peek), resource (dead letter queue for subscription), and emphasizes non-destructive read-only nature, distinguishing it from similar tools like servicebus_peek_subscription_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?

Explicitly advises using servicebus_peek_subscription_dlq_to_file when message bodies may be large, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not mention other related tools for DLQ operations (e.g., requeue, purge) or explicitly contrast with peeking active messages, which is implied by the tool name.

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