teams_read_chat_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states 'reads messages' but does not specify that it is read-only, the scope returned (e.g., recent messages), authorization requirements, or if pagination is supported. The description lacks 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, concise sentence. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, though it could benefit from slight expansion to improve completeness without becoming verbose.

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 tool's simplicity and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention what the tool returns, any limitations (e.g., only recent messages), or dependencies on prior selections (e.g., active chat). More context is needed for effective use.

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 (100% coverage), and the description does not need to explain parameters. It implicitly suggests the tool relies on context (e.g., current chat), which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

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 tool reads messages from a Teams chat or direct message thread, specifying the action (reads), resource (Messages), and scope (chat or direct message thread). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'teams_read_channel_messages' which is for channels.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'teams_read_channel_messages' or 'read_messages'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., requires an active chat selection), or when not to use it.

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