chat_list_teams

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

Annotations already define the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds the required permission scope 'Team.ReadBasic.All' and lists returned fields, going beyond the annotations to set expectations about access needs and output content.

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 two sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then give a useful tool chain and permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple parameter set (0 required) and absence of an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns (id, name, description), when to use it, and the required permission. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already fully covers the single parameter 'max_results' with its description ('Maximum teams to return'), and the tool description does not need to add further parameter semantics. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Microsoft Teams the signed-in user is a member of'), and further clarifies the returned fields (id, name, description). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing it as the starting point for team-scoped operations.

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 explicitly states 'Start here for anything scoped to a team' and provides a clear usage chain: team id -> chat_list_channels -> channel id -> reading messages. This gives direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and names a sibling tool (chat_list_channels).

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