teams_read_chat_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only conveys the implicit read-only nature of 'Reads'. It says nothing about permissions/scopes required, pagination or message-limit behavior, or result ordering for what is likely a paged inbox-style call.

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 filler; the resource is stated first and the identifier provenance is appended compactly.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it reads and where the ID comes from, but omits pagination, result shape, and channel-vs-chat disambiguation that an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 properties, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully names chat_id and its source tool even though that parameter is absent from the schema, adding meaning the schema does not supply.

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 (Reads) and resource (messages from a Teams chat or direct message thread), and implicitly distinguishes itself from teams_read_channel_messages by scoping to chats/DMs rather than channels. It does not name the sibling it contrasts with, so it stops 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 '(chat_id from teams_list_chats)' implies the prerequisite workflow for obtaining the identifier, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over teams_read_channel_messages or teams_search_messages.

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