get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what format the information is returned in, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear terminology. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has no parameters (schema is empty) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, return format, or error conditions. For a simple read operation, this is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement in behavioral context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema), so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value here but doesn't need to.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the tenant, team, and channel information of a tenant-based handle from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('tenant, team, and channel information'), and scope ('tenant-based handle'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles' (plural) or 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_channel', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this specific tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from similar tools like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles' (which likely lists multiple handles) or 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_channel'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer based on the name alone.

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