sqs_peek_messages

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

The description explicitly states that messages are not deleted (삭제하지 않음), which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description should also cover permissions, error behavior, or polling characteristics. The lack of such detail limits transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus parameter lines. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action. No fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks usage guidelines, alternative mentions, and detailed behavioral information. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may compensate for return value details, but the description still feels incomplete for an AI agent.

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?

Despite a reported 0% schema coverage, the description explains both parameters: queue_name is the queue name, and count is the number of messages (max 10). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially specifying the maximum count. The description is functional but could include more details like format or constraints.

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 previews messages from an SQS queue without deleting them. The verb '미리보기' (preview) combined with the resource 'SQS 큐' makes the purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools like sqs_list_queues and sqs_queue_detail are distinct, so no confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other SQS tools or SDK methods). The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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