Teams & Channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the progressive result set driven by which parameters are supplied. It omits the message_id/replies mode and the count cap, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the mode table and the sibling distinction. No filler sentences; every clause carries routing or scoping information.

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-required-parameter, read-only browse tool with strong annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers selection and routing well. The one real gap is that the message_id thread-replies mode and the count limit are never mentioned, so an agent reading only the description would not know that capability exists.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the team_id/channel_id/message_id dependency chain. The description restates the team_id+channel_id combination but adds no syntax, ID format, or default/value detail beyond the schema, so it lands at the baseline.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Browse) and resource (Microsoft Teams), and explicitly enumerates the three operating modes. It also names the sibling it is not (ms_chat) and why, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

States the exact conditions that select each mode: no params = joined teams, team_id = that team's channels, team_id+channel_id = recent messages. It also provides an explicit exclusion rule versus ms_chat for private/group chats, leaving nothing to inference.

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