teams_list_chats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return shape (title, id, preview, unread, settings) and that results are page-cached unless refresh=true. It does not state read-only nature, pagination limits, ordering, or permission requirements.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource first and the parameter note trailing; every clause adds information, though the embedded parenthetical about watch/send mode/handler is a bit crammed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the field enumeration is doing real work, and the refresh semantics cover the only parameter. Adequate for a simple one-parameter list tool; a note on ordering or page size would close the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does: 'refresh=true reads the page again' explains both the type and the effect of the sole parameter, implying default cached behavior. It could add whether refresh is expensive or rate-limited.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('Teams chats') and an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (title, id, last message preview, unread flag, settings). The resource is clearly distinct from the message-level siblings, though the description never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 'List chats' framing implies the when-to-use case and 'refresh=true reads the page again' hints at the caching scenario, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over teams_read_messages or teams_list_drafts, nor any prerequisites.

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