list-chats

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful scoping (signed-in user, chat types) but does not disclose behavioral details like ordering, truncation, or how the open-world result set behaves; those are partly covered by parameter docs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and scope, and the parenthetical chat types add precise value without bloating the text.

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 read-only list tool with five optional, well-documented parameters and comprehensive safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement of the return shape, but 'List' plus the resource specification is sufficient guidance, and pagination/filtering behavior is covered in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, but every parameter (cursor, filter, select, orderby, maxItems) is already well documented in the schema, so no gap exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('the signed-in user's Teams chats'), and enumerates the chat subtypes (1:1, group, meeting chats), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list-chat-messages or list-mail-messages.

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 usage scenario — enumerating the signed-in user's Teams chats — and the scope is clear, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as using get-chat for a single chat or list-chat-messages for messages within a chat.

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