Pilot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention pagination behavior, scope limitations (recent vs. all chats), required permissions, or what data is returned (chat IDs, participant names, timestamps). It also does not clarify what constitutes a 'chat' in Teams context (1:1, group, or meeting chats).

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 extremely concise at five words, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. However, given the complete absence of annotations and output schema, the brevity leaves significant gaps that a slightly longer description could have filled.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., chat IDs, titles, participant info) and the nature of Teams 'chats' versus channels. The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full contract of this list operation.

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. According to scoring rules, this establishes a baseline score of 4. There are no parameters requiring semantic elaboration beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (Microsoft Teams chat conversations), and specifies the platform to distinguish from the generic 'list_message_chats' sibling. However, it does not differentiate from 'teams_list_channels' (which lists channels, not direct chats) or 'teams_read_chat_messages' (which reads content within chats).

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 is provided on when to use this versus 'list_message_chats' (likely for SMS/iMessage) or when to prefer 'teams_read_chat_messages' after listing. There are no prerequisites, filtering constraints, or alternative recommendations mentioned.

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