teams_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about what the check returns, whether it is read-only, or what a failure/unauthenticated state looks like. For a status/diagnostic tool the absence of any return or condition indication is a real 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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally sound.

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?

Zero parameters keeps complexity low, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what a 'status' result tells the agent and how to act on it. It stops just short of that, leaving the agent to call it blind.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is also reported at 100%.

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?

It names a verb ('Check') and two objects ('Teams session export' and 'endpoint registry status'), which does separate it from siblings that all deal with chats/messages/files. However, 'session export' and 'endpoint registry' are unexplained internal jargon, so an agent cannot be sure what state is actually being inspected.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools (teams_login, list_chats, etc.) or what condition it diagnoses. The diagnostic intent is only implied by the word 'status'.

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