m365_teams_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., ordering, pagination, error handling) but does not contradict the annotations.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential verb and resource.

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 tool's simplicity, the strong schema, and thorough annotations, the description is functionally complete. Since there is no output schema, the phrase 'Get messages' adequately implies the return of a list. It doesn't mention pagination details, but those are covered by the schema's top parameter.

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 provides 100% coverage of the two parameters with clear descriptions ('Max messages' for top, 'Chat ID (from m365_teams_chats)' for chatId). The description itself adds no parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get messages from a Teams chat' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('messages'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like m365_teams_send (send messages) and m365_teams_chats (list chats). It accurately states what the tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as obtaining a chatId from m365_teams_chats, nor any exclusions or alternative tools. The only related hint ('from m365_teams_chats') appears in the schema, not the description.

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