list_teams_channel_aliases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List all saved' makes the read-only, no-filter scope reasonably clear. It does not detail output format or edge cases, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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 one short sentence with no filler. It states the key facts immediately: the operation is 'List' and the target is 'all saved Teams channel aliases.'

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?

For a zero-parameter, side-effect-free listing tool, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. The only missing element is an explicit description of the return shape, but that is not critical for a simple list operation.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no filtering is possible by saying 'all saved,' which is sufficient since there is nothing else to document.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all saved Teams channel aliases.' This clearly communicates the action and the object being operated on. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the list/save/delete sibling names make the distinction easy.

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?

Usage context is implied but not explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for retrieving previously saved Teams channel aliases, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over graph_teams_message_alias or how it relates to save/delete aliases.

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