List Channels

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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent. The description adds the scope ('all channels ... specified team') and the returned fields (names, descriptions, types, IDs), providing behavioral context beyond the annotation flags. It doesn't discuss pagination or error conditions, but those are minor for this simple read tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence earns its place. No filler.

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?

The definition is complete for a read-only list tool: it states what it lists, under what scope, and what the response contains. The schema covers the required teamId and optional tenantId. No output schema exists, so the return-field list is the key missing piece and it is provided.

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 parameters already have descriptions. The description only references the team (via 'specified team') without adding new semantic details about teamId or tenantId; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('channels'), and scope ('in a specific Microsoft Team'). It also enumerates returned fields, which distinguishes it from sibling list_teams and get_channel_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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description implies you need channel info for a given team, but it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., use list_teams first).

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