list_teams_chats

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

The description carries the full burden since no annotations are provided. It discloses the source (Teams sidebar) and the output contents (chat names and activity timestamps), making the read-only, listing nature clear. It could be more explicit about sorting or non-mutation, but the verb 'Lists' strongly implies a safe read operation.

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 tight sentences, with the core functionality in the first and the usage boundary in the second. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple 1-param, no-output-schema tool, this is complete. The description states what is returned (chat names and timestamps), where from (Teams sidebar), and when to use it. The input schema covers the rest.

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%: the only parameter, 'limit', is fully described with a default value. The description does not add any parameter semantics, which is appropriate because the schema already handles it. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') tied to a clear resource: chat names and activity timestamps from the Teams sidebar. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all deal with message-level operations.

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 explicitly gated: 'Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks to list, see, or browse their conversations.' This gives a precise when-to-use condition and implicitly warns against using it for message retrieval or sending, which are covered by siblings.

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