teams_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation (list) without mentioning read-only nature, return format, pagination, permissions required, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool that accesses files.

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 that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, the brevity sacrifices useful detail that could be included without harming conciseness.

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 (relieving the description of detailing return values), the description adequately covers the basic function. It identifies the required parameters and the action. However, it omits information about the scope of files (e.g., all files in the folder) or any filtering capabilities, which could be valuable.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's brief parameter descriptions ('Team ID', 'Channel ID'). It provides context about the SharePoint folder but does not clarify parameter relationships or constraints.

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 action ('list') and resource ('files in a Teams channel's SharePoint folder'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'teams_channels' (lists channels) and 'teams_list' (lists teams). The verb+resource combo is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'teams_upload' or 'teams_download'. Usage context is implied only by the tool name and action, but without explicit scenarios or exclusions, an AI agent may lack clarity on selection criteria.

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