teams_list_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no authentication requirement (an M365 account must be connected), no pagination or result-limit behavior, no indication of what happens if the team_id is invalid. 'From Microsoft 365' identifies the data source but adds little beyond the name.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and resource come first and the prerequisite hint follows. Minor redundancy in 'by name, from Microsoft 365' marginally dilutes it.

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 simple read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (channel names), the data source, and the prerequisite call. Given the absence of annotations, a sentence on auth/pagination would have fully closed the gap.

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 schema declares zero parameters and 100% description coverage, which would normally anchor this at 4. However, the description references a 'team_id from teams_list_teams' that does not exist anywhere in the input schema, creating a mismatch between prose and structured fields that an agent could stumble over.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (lists channels of a Microsoft Teams team) and names the sibling tool that supplies the prerequisite id, so an agent can distinguish it from teams_list_teams, teams_list_chats and teams_read_channel_messages. The trailing 'by name' is slightly ambiguous (channel names vs. sort order), which keeps it 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?

The parenthetical '(team_id from teams_list_teams)' gives an explicit prerequisite chain, telling the agent to call teams_list_teams first. It stops short of stating exclusions or contrasting alternatives (e.g., when to use teams_read_channel_messages instead), so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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