teams_read_chat_messages

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Read messages' without disclosing limitations, pagination, permissions, or what 'chat' specifically means (direct vs. group). Minimal behavioral info.

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?

Very concise single sentence, but missing critical details that would help an agent use it correctly. Conciseness is good but not at the expense of essential information.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify which chat, what messages (recent scope), or any prerequisites, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so no param info needed. However, the description does not explain how the tool identifies which chat to read (e.g., relies on prior selection). This missing context reduces clarity.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'messages from a Teams chat'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'teams_read_channel_messages' or the generic 'read_messages', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'teams_read_channel_messages', 'search_messages'). The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description provides no usage context.

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