servicebus_peek_subscription_dlq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, what is returned (message bodies, dead letter reason, metadata), and the max_count cap of 100. This is sufficient for a peek operation, though it does not cover rate limits or empty queue behavior.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding distinct value: operation type, read-only nature, return data, cap, and alternative tool. 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 (though not shown) and clear description of return data, the description is adequately complete for a peek tool. It covers the key behavioral aspects and constraints without needing to detail the output schema.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description only adds context for max_count ('capped at 100') but does not elaborate on namespace, topic, subscription, or the default value. Without schema descriptions, the description should provide more parameter guidance.

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 'Non-destructively peek at messages in the dead letter queue for a topic subscription' with specific verb (peek) and resource (DLQ for subscription). It distinguishes from sibling 'servicebus_peek_subscription_dlq_to_file' by suggesting that alternative for large message bodies.

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?

It explicitly says 'non-destructively' and 'read-only' to indicate when to use, and suggests using 'servicebus_peek_subscription_dlq_to_file' for large bodies as an exclusion criterion. However, it does not contrast with other siblings like purge or requeue, leaving some ambiguity.

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