m365_teams_chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the scope ('your') but not disclosing behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or what constitutes a chat. With annotations carrying the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the essential information. It contains no filler or redundant content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 optional parameter and robust annotations, the description is largely complete. The absence of an output schema is not a major issue given the tool's simplicity, but the description could have briefly noted what a chat represents or how the 'top' parameter affects results. Overall, it is adequate 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?

The only parameter 'top' has a schema description ('Max chats') that fully covers its meaning, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional context about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 ('your Teams chats'), and the possessive 'your' scopes it to the current user's chats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like m365_teams_messages, which list messages within a chat, and m365_teams_send, which sends 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and one-line description.

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