list_message_replies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it states ordering (newest first), pagination ('Graph caps reply pages at 50'), default snippet-only output, and the effect of include_body/include_raw. It does not mention error behavior or auth, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'List' and the detailed return contract.

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 tightly organized into a one-line purpose, an Args block, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds operational value, with no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the missing contract: it defines each parameter, clarifies default behavior, and provides the exact return shape {'items': [...], 'next_page_token': str | None}. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does, explaining every parameter: team/channel/message ids, limit with its 1-50 range and Graph cap, page_token semantics, include_body's effect on body/attachments, and include_raw's raw payload inclusion. This is far beyond what the bare input schema offers.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List replies to a channel message (the thread under a root post), newest first.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic message-listing siblings like list_channel_messages and list_messages by scoping it to thread replies under a root post.

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 clear context for when the tool applies (thread replies under a root channel message) and even references list_channel_messages as the source of the root message id. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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