browse_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The key behavioral trait (non-consuming read) is explicitly stated, which is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose whether messages remain available after browsing, whether browsing affects message locks or visibility timeouts, or whether results are ordered/deduped. For a read operation with no annotations, this is partially disclosed but incomplete.

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?

A single, dense sentence that communicates purpose and the key distinguishing trait (non-consuming) with zero wasted words. Front-loads the core action and constraint efficiently.

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?

This is a relatively simple tool (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers the core purpose and distinguishing behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from describing the return format (array of message bodies/headers), ordering, or whether browed messages are locked. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of annotations and 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters (connectionId, queueName, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—for example, it doesn't clarify limit defaults or behavior (does limit 0 mean no limit?). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Browse messages in a queue without consuming them' uses a specific verb+resource (browse messages in a queue) and adds a critical distinguishing feature: non-consuming behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling consume_message, though it doesn't name the alternative explicitly.

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 'without consuming them' phrasing implicitly signals when to use this versus consume_message, contrasting peek-style reading versus destructive consumption. However, it doesn't name the alternative tool, discuss when NOT to use it, or clarify whether a non-consuming browse is the right choice for inspection workflows or if consume is needed for actual processing.

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