servicebus_peek_subscription_messages

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

Details read-only nature, no locking or consumption, max_count cap of 100, return contents, and authentication method with fallback. Since no annotations exist, the description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with primary purpose, then behavioral details, then alternative, then param explanation. No fluff.

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 core functionality, return data, and authentication. Missing explanation for session_id parameter, but overall sufficient given output schema handles return structure.

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 explains connection_string_env_var behavior and mentions max_count cap, but does not describe other parameters like session_id or the required namespace/topic/subscription.

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 it peeks at messages in a topic subscription, non-destructively. Differentiates from sibling tools like servicebus_peek_subscription_messages_to_file and servicebus_peek_dlq.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use the '_to_file' variant for large messages. Does not mention other alternatives like peek_dlq for dead-letter queues, but the context is clear enough.

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