intercom_ask

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

The description reveals an important behavioral trait: this is a blocking question that should only be used when the reply is required for the next step. Annotations provide readOnly=false and destructive=false but do not explain the blocking/waitting nature, so the description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary condition is front-loaded, and the alternative sibling is mentioned immediately after, making the guidance easy to scan and apply.

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 description gives strong when-to-use and routing guidance, and the timeout_ms schema adds useful blocking/error behavior. However, there is no output schema and no explicit statement about what the tool returns, and the recipient/attachment semantics remain underspecified. It is adequate for simple use but incomplete for full confidence in all invocation paths.

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 only 25%; only timeout_ms is documented. The description indirectly hints that 'to' refers to another intercom session and 'message' is the question, but it does not explain message format, how to identify the target session, or what attachments mean. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate more and does not.

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 states a specific action: ask another intercom session a question, and attaches a clear condition (only when the next step depends on its reply). It also differentiates the tool from intercom_send by naming what that sibling is for, so an agent can select the right tool without relying solely on the name.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: only when the next step depends on the reply. It also gives a direct alternative: use intercom_send for assignments, progress/status checkpoints, and notifications. The timeout_ms schema description reinforces this by recommending intercom_send plus intercom_pending for longer work.

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