teams_read_channel_messages

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any behavior such as whether messages are paginated, limited to recent messages, or include threading. The read operation is implied but not detailed.

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 concise sentence. While it could include more detail, it is not verbose and communicates the core purpose efficiently given the simple interface (no parameters).

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., a channel must be selected via another tool), side effects, or return value structure. Given the existence of sibling tools with similar names, completeness is inadequate.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description does not contradict or confuse parameter usage.

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 'Read messages from a Teams channel' clearly identifies the verb (read) and resource (Teams channel messages). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'teams_read_chat_messages', which likely serves a similar purpose for chat 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'teams_read_chat_messages' or prerequisites such as needing a specific channel context from a prior call. The agent receives no usage context.

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