dlq_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the added context about expired/failed messages is useful, but the description does not explicitly state the lack of side effects, return format, or pagination behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and target, and the second adds relevant semantic context about what DLQ messages are.

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 paginated list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and message semantics. While there is no output schema to explain return values, the scope is minimal and the tool name plus context make it sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters (limit and offset) with clear defaults, bounds, and descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('messages in the dead-letter queue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dlq_retry and dlq_purge. It immediately conveys what the tool does.

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 when to use the tool by explaining that DLQ messages are those that expired or failed delivery, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over dlq_retry/dlq_purge or mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is present but only implicit.

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