chat_list_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the required permission (Channel.ReadBasic.All) and clarifying the return fields, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, how the input is obtained, and how the output is used. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no waste.

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 list tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, input source, output usage, and required permission. It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by stating that the team_id comes from chat_list_teams, providing provenance that the schema does not include.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'channels in one Microsoft Teams team', including what fields are returned (id, name, description). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'one Microsoft Teams team' and linking to chat_list_teams and chat_list_channel_messages.

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 explicit usage context: it tells the agent to obtain a team id from chat_list_teams and explains that the returned channel id is what chat_list_channel_messages needs. This creates a clear workflow and effectively communicates when to use this tool.

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