Get Teams Channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read' which indicates a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, error behavior, or what is returned. Minimal disclosure beyond the verb.

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 concise with the English purpose front-loaded. The Chinese intent examples are supplementary and add value for multilingual support without being verbose. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not clarify what 'details' includes or what the response structure looks like, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both teamId and channelId, though minimal. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 details for one Microsoft Teams channel' clearly specifies the verb (read), resource (Microsoft Teams channel), and scope (one specific channel). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like teams_list_channels (which lists channels) and teams_get_team (which gets a team).

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 implies usage when you need details for a specific channel, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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