Teams Chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope with 'recent' and conditional return behavior, but it omits the members-listing behavior and any pagination or rate-limit context.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and then explain the conditional behavior without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the primary list and message-retrieval modes, and the rich input schema fully documents the members parameter. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though explicitly mentioning the members sub-mode would make it stronger.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents count, chat_id, and members. The description adds conditional meaning for chat_id but does not explain the members parameter or any other parameter details beyond what structured fields provide.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Microsoft Teams chats'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ms_teams or ms_mail, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It clearly explains how to use the main variants: without chat_id it lists recent chats, and with chat_id it returns messages from that chat. It does not mention when to use an alternative sibling tool or address the members sub-mode, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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