microsoft_list_channel_messages

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

The description mentions routing through an API under JWT/tenant/company scope, which offers some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it fails to explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (listing messages) and does not describe potential side effects or return characteristics.

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 short, but it front-loads routing information (two sentences) while the core purpose is only implied by the name. It could be more concise by stating the listing action first. The structure is acceptable but not optimized.

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's complexity (listing channel messages requires identifying the channel) and the presence of sibling tools, the description fails to specify what parameters are needed or how to invoke it properly. An output schema exists but is not shown, so completeness remains low.

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 single parameter 'arguments' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is generic and does not specify the required structure (e.g., channelId, teamId). It adds no meaningful semantic value.

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 only restates the operation name and shows routing details, but does not explicitly state that the tool lists messages from a Microsoft Teams channel. The purpose is vague and relies on interpreting the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like microsoft_list_chat_messages, microsoft_post_channel_message, etc. The description lacks any context about selection criteria.

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