intercom_ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies synchronous blocking by tying usage to dependency on a reply, and the condition 'only when...depends on its reply' adds decision context. However, it does not in prose state what happens on timeout, error, or whether the call blocks, though the timeout_ms schema description partially covers this.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the condition, then a direct pointer to the alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 captures the core purpose and usage distinction, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return values, timeout/error behavior, and any guidance on attachments. For a simple tool with 4 parameters, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only 25%, and the description does not explain parameters. The verbs 'ask' and 'question' loosely map to 'to' and 'message', but attachments and timeout behavior are left unexplained. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 ('ask') and resource ('another intercom session'), and clearly distinguishes from intercom_send by specifying that ask is for dependent replies, while send is for assignments, checkpoints, and notifications. This fully differentiates it among siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('only when the next step depends on its reply') and provides the alternative tool (intercom_send) for other use cases. This gives clear decision guidance.

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