servicebus_peek_dlq

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the read-only, non-locking nature and lists return values (message bodies, dead letter reason, metadata). However, it does not mention permissions or error conditions.

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 4 sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, non-destructive nature, return values, cap, and sibling alternative. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description covers return values and key constraints. It also points to an alternative for large bodies. Minor gaps like authentication or error handling exist but are acceptable.

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%, but the description adds value by noting the max_count cap. Namespace and queue are self-explanatory for the domain, so no further elaboration is critical.

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 action (peek), resource (dead letter queue), and scope (for a Service Bus queue), distinguishing it from siblings like servicebus_peek_messages and servicebus_peek_subscription_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?

Explicitly declares the operation as read-only and non-destructive, and provides a clear alternative (servicebus_peek_dlq_to_file) for large message bodies. Also mentions the max_count cap of 100.

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