List Teams Channel Message Replies

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. It discloses a key trait: requiring delegated ChannelMessage.Read.All and usually tenant admin consent. However, it does not describe anticipated output format, pagination behavior, or any side effects beyond being a read operation, leaving some ambiguity.

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, consisting of two sentences (plus Chinese intent translations) that directly state the tool's purpose and a permission caveat. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no wasted words, earning a high score.

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?

This is a straightforward read-only list operation without an output schema. The description covers the essential action and permission requirements, and the schema fully documents the parameters. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning whether the result is a flat list or supports pagination via the 'top' parameter, but given the simplicity of the tool and the schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including semantics for teamId, channelId, messageId, and top. The description does not add additional meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List replies under a Teams channel message' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like teams_list_channel_messages, which lists messages in a channel rather than replies to a specific message. The inclusion of Chinese intent phrases further clarifies the 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?

The description gives a clear purpose but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions permission requirements (delegated ChannelMessage.Read.All and tenant admin consent) which implies a prerequisite but does not contrast with other sibling tools such as teams_list_channel_messages or teams_send_channel_message. Use is implied by the resource type, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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