teams_workspace_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that binary files are not fully read—only metadata and path hint are returned—which is a critical behavioral trait. There is no contradiction with 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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and the binary file caveat in the second. Every word is necessary, and no information is superfluous.

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 has a single simple parameter and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the behavior (text vs binary) and provides an alternative for binary files. No additional details about return values are needed.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'filename' parameter, which already includes a brief description. The description adds only the context 'workspace directory', which is redundant with the tool name. It does not elaborate on filename formats or path restrictions.

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 a text file from the workspace directory, with a specific verb 'read' and resource 'text file'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like teams_workspace_write and teams_workspace_list by specifying its read-only nature and handling of binary files.

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: for binary files, it advises using the filesystem server instead. While it does not list all when-not-to-use scenarios, the alternative is clearly stated, covering the most common misuse case.

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