servicebus_peek_subscription_messages

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it's read-only, non-destructive, returns message bodies and metadata, caps max_count at 100, and details session handling (peeking a specific session or automatically accepting the next available one). No behavioral gaps remain.

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 front-loaded purpose and structured bullet points for behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (sessions, capping, alternative tool), the description covers all needed context: read-only nature, return information, limits, session behavior, and when to use a sibling. Output schema exists, so return values are not required.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains max_count (default 10, capped 100) and session_id (sessions, optional, auto-accept if omitted). However, it does not elaborate on namespace, topic, or subscription beyond their names, leaving some parameters minimally described.

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 peeks non-destructively at messages in a subscription, using specific verbs ('peek', 'non-destructively'). It distinguishes from siblings like servicebus_peek_subscription_messages_to_file by noting when to use the alternative for large 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 guides when to use this tool (for peeking) and when to use an alternative (servicebus_peek_subscription_messages_to_file for large messages). Session behavior is clearly explained, providing comprehensive usage context.

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