peek_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the two most important behaviors: the operation is non-destructive (no consumption), and MassTransit envelopes are parsed when detected, which tells the agent that returned message content may be transformed. It omits minor details like ordering guarantees or empty-queue behavior, but the critical traits are covered.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and the non-destructive guarantee are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the MassTransit detail earns its place in the second. Every word adds information.

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 is sufficient for invoking the tool: it names the action, the target resource, and the safety profile, while the schema covers parameters. However, with no output schema present, the description does not disclose what the response looks like (message bodies? headers? count?), and it does not cover failure behavior such as nonexistent queues. These are noticeable gaps given the absence of an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (queue, count, vhost) documented in the schema including defaults and bounds. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline of 3; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline stands.

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') with a clear resource ('messages in a queue') and adds the key qualifier 'without consuming them (non-destructive)', which precisely scopes the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling peek_errors or get_queue, so an agent must infer the boundaries from the sibling names rather than the description.

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 non-destructive framing implies the use case: inspect queue contents without side effects. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as peek_errors (for error queues) or get_queue (for queue statistics), and no stated exclusions or conditions.

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