microsoft_list_chats

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

The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not explain the actual behavior of listing chats, such as side effects, permissions, or what data is returned. With no annotations, the description fails to adequately disclose behavioral traits.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and routing info. However, it lacks essential details, so conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity of a list operation and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It does not describe return values, expected input structure, or usage scoping, making it incomplete.

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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but no details are given about its expected structure or fields. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 it as a Microsoft connector operation 'list_chats', which implies listing chat conversations. However, it does not specify what type of chats (e.g., Teams chats vs general Graph chats) or any additional context, making it somewhat vague.

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 vs siblings like microsoft_list_chat_messages or microsoft_list_team_channels. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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