Pilot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses nothing about authentication requirements, rate limiting, pagination, or return format. It does not clarify the scope (all teams vs. current context) despite having no parameters.

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 single sentence is appropriately brief but overly terse given the lack of annotations and output schema. It wastes no words but fails to front-load critical context about the zero-parameter behavior.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and the unusual absence of a team_id parameter, the description is incomplete. It must explain how the tool determines which team's channels to list, or if it returns all channels across all teams.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 verb (List) and resource (channels) with context (Teams team). It sufficiently distinguishes from siblings like teams_list_teams (which lists teams) and teams_read_channel_messages (which reads 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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus teams_list_teams or teams_read_channel_messages. Critically, it fails to explain how to specify which team to query given the zero-parameter schema, leaving a major operational gap.

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