consume_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Consume' strongly implies the message is removed from the queue once read, but the description doesn't state this destructive behavior, the blocking nature of the call, or consequences of a timeout. The autoAck default of true implies automatic removal, but this is never disclosed in the text. For a tool that mutates queue state, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, direct, complete sentence with zero wasted words. It states the essential purpose without fluff. This is appropriately concise for a single-line tool description.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to disclose the blocking semantics, timeout behavior's effect on return (null vs error), whether consumption is destructive, and the meaning of the return value (returned message body). Without an output schema, the absence of return-format information is more impactful. For a queue-consuming tool with these complexities, more behavioral context is needed.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters well, giving a baseline of 3. The description doesn't add syntactic detail, but the schema's parameter descriptions carry clear meaning (timeout in ms, auto-ack behavior, client ID for persistent sessions). No format ambiguities remain, so the schema suffices. A 4 is warranted since the schema documentation is thorough enough that the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'Consume a message from a queue' uses a specific verb (consume) and resource (message from a queue), making the core purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like browse_messages or send_message beyond the consumption semantics, which is arguably inherent. It's clear but provides no deeper disambiguation of what 'consume' means (destructive read vs peek).

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 usage context (consuming from a queue) but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like browse_messages (non-destructive reads) or send_message. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., an active connection) or contextual scenarios where this tool is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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