microsoft_list_chat_messages

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only includes routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens upon invocation, rate limits, or how chat messages are scoped (e.g., by chat ID). This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 relatively short but includes boilerplate about routing and a suboptimal structure that buries the purpose in a parenthetical. It could be more concise by removing internal details and focusing on usage.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description still fails to provide essential context such as what constitutes a chat message, how to specify a chat, or the scope of results. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool correctly.

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' is described as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, but no structure or example is provided. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by listing expected fields (e.g., chat ID, filters), but it does not.

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 identifies the tool as a Microsoft connector operation to list chat messages, but fails to specify the context (e.g., Teams, Graph API) or how it differs from siblings like microsoft_list_channel_messages or microsoft_list_chats. The verb and resource are clear, but the purpose is ambiguous without differentiation.

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 such as microsoft_list_channel_messages. There is no mention of prerequisites, required parameters, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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