peek_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that messages are parsed and what fields are returned, but it does not explicitly state that peeking is non-destructive or what happens with non-MassTransit/malformed messages. The word 'peek' implies read-only, but an explicit statement would be more 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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the specific returned fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation context: what the tool does, what kind of queue it targets, and what the returned content includes. Since there is no output schema, the explicit field list is valuable. It could be slightly more complete with a note about non-destructive behavior or behavior on non-MassTransit messages, but it is sufficient for a straightforward peek tool.

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 100%, and the description does not add meaningful parameter-level details beyond what the schema already states. The description's mention of parsed fault details is behavioral context rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and names the exact resource ('error queue messages') with a distinctive feature set: parsed MassTransit fault details (exception type, message, stack trace, original payload, source host). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_error_queues (which lists queue names) and peek_messages (which would not provide MassTransit-specific parsing).

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 context is implied: this is for browsing error-queue messages with MassTransit fault detail parsing. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over peek_messages or list_error_queues, nor does it mention when not to use it. A more explicit routing statement would strengthen this dimension.

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