teams_list_chats

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 mention that a connected Microsoft 365 account is required, no pagination or result-ordering behavior, no indication of how many chats are returned or how they are sorted. Enumerating chat types is the only behavioral content.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is appropriate for a no-argument list tool. The trailing '...' is the only flaw, hinting at content that was cut off rather than an intentionally terse statement.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is sufficient to invoke it, but it omits the prerequisite (a connected Microsoft 365 account) and any disambiguation from the many sibling chat/message-listing tools, leaving the agent to guess when this is the right call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what an empty schema already conveys.

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+resource ('Lists the Microsoft Teams chats') and even enumerates the chat subtypes returned (direct messages, group chats, meeting chats), which is genuinely informative. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like teams_list_channels or teams_read_chat_messages, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teams_list_channels (to find a channel) or teams_read_chat_messages (to read a specific chat). Usage is only implied by the name, and the trailing ellipsis suggests the description was truncated before any guidance could appear.

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