teams_list_channels

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or returns channel names/IDs. The description is purely functional with no behavioral context.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is overly brief, missing essential details about usage, output, and prerequisites. Conciseness is good, but at the expense of informativeness.

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, no annotations, and sibling tools that require context (e.g., which team), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain the team identifier or what data the returned channels contain.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4 per calibration. However, the description mentions 'in a Teams team' implying a team context, yet no parameter exists to specify it, causing ambiguity. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics and may mislead.

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 states 'List channels in a Teams team,' which is a specific verb+resource, but it is vague because it does not specify which team, and the absence of team parameters in the input schema creates confusion. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like teams_list_chats or teams_list_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like teams_read_channel_messages or teams_list_teams exist, but the description provides no context for selection.

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