List My Teams Chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the auth requirement ('Requires delegated Chat.Read') and the user scope, which are useful. However, it omits details such as whether pagination defaults apply, the maximum number of chats returned if 'top' is omitted, and any explicit statement that this is a safe read-only operation.

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 and front-loaded with the main action. The Chinese intent block is ancillary but not harmful, and the overall length is appropriate for a simple list operation. Every sentence except possibly the Chinese translation serves a clear purpose.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior, scope, and permission requirement. Minor omissions like the default value of 'top' are not critical given the low complexity and strong sibling differentiation.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter 'top' with a clear description ('Number of chats to return, from 1 to 50'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since no extra meaning beyond the schema is needed.

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 one-on-one and group Teams chats involving the signed-in user,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like teams_list_joined_teams, which list teams, not chats. The Chinese intents also reinforce the purpose for multilingual contexts.

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 clear context by specifying that it lists chats for the signed-in user and requires delegated Chat.Read. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope ('one-on-one and group chats') inherently differentiates it from team-list or channel-message sibling tools, giving the agent enough signal to select it appropriately.

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