Read chat messages

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: newest first ordering, default limit, and response format options. No contradiction with annotations. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but annotations cover the safety profile well.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses bullet points for parameters. No redundant sentences. Every part 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?

Given 3 parameters, all well-documented in schema, and no output schema, the description explains return structure (JSON with count, messages array with fields). This is fairly complete for a read-only tool. Missing error handling or pagination details, but acceptable given annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds extra context: 'chat_id from teams_list_chats', 'limit max 50', and response_format enumeration. It summarizes parameter behavior succinctly, adding value beyond schema.

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 clearly states 'Read recent messages from a 1:1 or group chat, newest first.' The verb 'Read', resource 'recent messages', and scope are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like teams_list_channel_messages (for channels) and teams_send_chat_message (write).

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?

The description provides context for obtaining the chat_id ('from teams_list_chats') and parameter defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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