Browse messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces non-destructiveness with 'without removing them'. However, it does not disclose ordering, filtering capabilities, or whether the read is limited to a snapshot vs. live data. The output schema may cover return structure, but behavioral details are minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key property (non-destructive read). Every word adds value, with no 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?

For a simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description combined with annotations provides sufficient context. The tool is straightforward, and the absence of edge-case details (e.g., handling of empty queues) is acceptable given the complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Read messages from a queue' and does not elaborate on the 'address' parameter or the 'limit' behavior. The schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'messages', and the key condition 'without removing them'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_queues (which lists queues) and get_queue_stats (which provides statistics), as it focuses on message content.

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 description implies the primary use case (peeking at messages without consumption). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tool names (e.g., list_queues, get_queue_info) make it clear this is for reading message bodies, not queue metadata.

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