postTeamsMessage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the primary behavior (sending a message) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential side effects, permissions, or message formatting. This is adequate for a simple messaging tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.

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 tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the purpose and required parameters, though it could optionally mention that the message is plain text or provide guidance on getting team/channel IDs, but these are not essential.

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%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'specified Microsoft Teams channel', so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 the action (sends) and the specific resource (text message to a Microsoft Teams channel). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like postSlackMessage by explicitly naming Teams.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to post a message to a Microsoft Teams channel. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, but the context is clear enough given the tool name and description.

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