teams_chat_messages

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as message ordering, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. For a read operation, additional context like chronological order is beneficial.

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, concise sentence without redundancy. However, it may be too sparse, missing important details like the presence of the 'top' parameter or the distinction from sibling tools.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, the absence of annotations and minimal description means the tool is not fully contextualized among siblings. The description is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks completeness in distinguishing from related tools.

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 descriptions for both parameters (chat_id and top), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states it reads messages from Teams chats, specifying they are 1:1 or group. The verb 'Read' and resource 'messages' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'teams_messages', which may serve a similar role for channels.

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 like 'teams_messages' or 'teams_chat_send'. It lacks 'when to use' and 'when not to use' instructions.

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