teams_call_history

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full transparency burden. It correctly discloses read-only nature and local source (cache). Missing potential caveats like staleness or missing cache, but adequate for a simple read.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the action and key constraints (local cache, no API). Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, description only states source and action. Missing return format, potential errors, or caveats. Adequate but could add details like 'returns list of call/meeting records with timestamps and participants' to fully inform the agent.

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?

No parameters in schema (0 params), so description needs no parameter details. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Schema covers 100% (trivially).

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?

Description clearly states it reads Microsoft Teams call & meeting history from the Mac's local Teams cache, avoiding Graph API. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like teams_list_chats or teams_send_message that use the cloud API.

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?

Description implies use for local cache data without tokens, contrasting with cloud-based sibling tools (e.g., teams_list_channels). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid or provide alternatives, so a slight deduction.

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