m365_chat_with_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool uses 'M365 Copilot reads the files and answers', implies AI synthesis rather than raw retrieval, and mentions conversation continuity via conversation_id. However, it doesn't address potential limitations like file size constraints, authentication needs, or rate limits that would be helpful for a mutation-like 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the opening statement defines the tool, the bullet points clarify use cases, and the final sections provide clear differentiation from siblings. No wasted words or 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 complexity (AI-powered document analysis with conversation continuity) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's behavior, use cases, and alternatives. However, it could benefit from mentioning expected output format or error conditions, especially since there's no output schema provided.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions, though it reinforces the purpose of message and file_uris through usage examples. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose: 'Ask questions about specific documents you already have URIs for' with specific verbs like 'summarizing', 'comparing', and 'extracting info'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools m365_search and m365_retrieve, making the scope and differentiation clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use for: Summarizing known documents, Comparing specific files, Extracting info from particular docs') and when to use alternatives ('Use m365_search first when: You need to find the files', 'Use m365_retrieve when: You want raw text chunks, not Copilot's synthesis'). This covers both positive and negative use cases with named alternatives.

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