My best guess is that they may try to protect you from session fixation attacks.
A short (and simplified) description of a way this attack can take place is that, when you first connect (note: connect means getting the landing page, not logging in) to a system (e.g. website) you may start an anonymous session (for various reasons, e.g. anonymous user behaviour analysis or multi-step account registration). This session has an id and is called pre-authentication session. It may be possible that the same session id can be used to identify you post-authentication (I'm not sure whether Microsoft does this, but it is what some sites do). So, here's where the problem lies; lets say that while using your computer at your work, you visit a site, you are given a (pre-authentication) session id, you hit the login button and (for whatever reason) you get up and leave your computer unattended for some time. At this point, a malicious colleague of yours may come to your computer, find out the session id and copy it. Then you return and login as expected. If the site uses the same session id to identify you after you login, since the attacker also has it, she can now use the site by impersonating you.
Another scenario would be that a malicious user can launch a client (e.g. browser) in a commonly used computer (e.g. internet cafe, or library), visit a page, copy the pre-authentication session id and then leave the computer. The next person to sit on the computer may just go on and login, giving essentially access to her account to the malicious user.
Microsoft Teams is just a client for Microsoft's related service, so during the login step it may have a pre-authentication session id assigned to you. As such, a login timeout is in order.
Note that I'm not suggesting that Microsoft Teams uses the same session id for pre- and post-authentication, I'm just saying that my take on the timeout is because of this. It may be that because it's listed as a counter measure in OWASP's session management cheat sheet they just implemented it anyways, even if this attack may not be applicable to the specific client.
You may want to also read this answer to a similar question.