teams_read_channel_messages

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'read', implying no side effects. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or if it returns all messages or a limited set.

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, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, but lacks additional details that could be added without significant length.

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 the absence of parameters and output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how channels are specified. It omits crucial context like output format, message count, or selection method, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, primarily clarifying the resource type. It could better explain which channel is targeted (e.g., currently selected channel).

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 'read' and resource 'messages from a Teams channel', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'teams_read_chat_messages'. However, it does not specify how the channel is selected, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 such as 'teams_read_chat_messages' or 'read_messages'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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