List Teams Chat Messages

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

The description adds the important auth requirement 'Requires delegated Chat.Read', which is beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as default pagination, sorting order, or response structure (e.g., message fields). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but this simple read-only tool provides only minimal 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 English portion is concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose and auth requirement in one clear sentence. The Chinese intent list adds redundancy but does not bloat the description. Overall, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and auth but lacks details on return format or how the result relates to other chat tools. It also does not explicitly differentiate from teams_list_channel_messages, leaving some ambiguity for the agent. This is adequate but not fully 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?

Both parameters (chatId and top) have descriptive text in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool description does not need to add parameter info. The description itself adds no param-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 specifically states 'List recent messages in a Teams chat', combining a clear verb ('list') with a specific resource ('recent messages in a Teams chat'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like teams_list_channel_messages, which focus on channel messages rather than chat messages. The additional Chinese intents reinforce the purpose without ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teams_list_channel_messages or teams_list_chats. The usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but the description stops short of stating 'use this for Teams chats, not channel messages' or mentioning any exclusions.

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