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 behavior. It only states 'Reads messages', implying a read-only operation, but fails to detail authentication requirements, message scope (all messages or recent), pagination, or return format. The agent lacks adequate 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 extremely concise (6 words) but at the cost of being under-informative. While there is no fluff, the brevity leaves significant gaps in understanding, such as how the channel is determined. A slightly longer description with workflow context would be better.

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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema) but the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the target channel is selected, what messages are returned (recent, all, count), or any authentication/scope requirements. For a read tool, this is insufficient.

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 is empty (0 parameters), and schema coverage is 100% trivially. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; no deduction is needed.

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 'Reads messages from a Microsoft Teams channel' clearly states the action (reads) and the resource (messages from a Teams channel). It distinguishes from sibling tools like teams_read_chat_messages (reads from a chat, not a channel) and teams_send_channel_message (sends, not reads).

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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to select a channel first) or exclusions. There is no context about typical workflow steps.

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