servicebus_peek_dlq_to_file

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral info: 'non-destructively', saving bodies to file as JSON, and returning only metadata. However, it does not mention file overwrite behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. Overall, sufficiently 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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose and non-destructive nature, second explains file format and returned metadata. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return values. It lacks details on max_count and output_file format (JSON keyed by sequence number is mentioned). Output schema likely covers return values, so overall adequate but leaves some parameter specifics unaddressed.

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, so description must compensate. It explains output_file's role and mentions max_count implicitly via default, but namespace and queue are not described beyond the tool name. Partial compensation, but insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 peeks at dead letter queue messages non-destructively and saves bodies to a file, distinguishing it from siblings like servicebus_peek_dlq (no file) and servicebus_peek_messages_to_file (regular queue).

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 implies usage for examining DLQ messages and saving bodies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like servicebus_peek_dlq (no file) or servicebus_peek_messages_to_file (regular queue). No direct when-not or alternative guidance.

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