browse_message

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses a key behavioral trait: the API has no cursor pagination, so consecutive calls return the same first message. This is valuable context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 tight and well-structured: purpose first, then limitations and alternatives, then parameter documentation. Every sentence carries meaningful information and nothing is redundant.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: what it does, its restrictions, how it differs from alternatives, and what the two parameters mean. No meaningful gap remains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by naming both parameters and providing realistic examples (QM1, DEV.QUEUE.1), adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles. It could have included more detail, but for two required string parameters the examples are sufficient.

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 and resource: browse the first message on a queue without removing it. It differentiates from the sibling get_message by explicitly noting that get_message is for taking the message and removing it from the queue.

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 gives explicit guidance on when not to use this tool: for iterating an entire queue, use a native MQ client instead; to remove a message, use get_message. It also highlights the REST API limitation of no cursor pagination and repeated results, which directly informs the agent's decision-making.

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