intercom_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the locality signal ('on this machine'), consistent with openWorldHint=false, but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or whether stale sessions are included.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it leaves the schema gaps noted elsewhere unfilled.

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?

Two undocumented parameters, one with a three-value enum, and no output schema mean the agent gets no help on what a returned session record contains or how scope changes the result. For a discovery tool with zero schema coverage, the description should say more about what is listed and under which scope.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. 'On this machine' hints at the default 'machine' scope but leaves the 'directory' and 'repo' enum values and the include_self flag entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('intercom-connected Pi or Codex sessions') with a locality qualifier ('on this machine'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like intercom_team or intercom_whoami, which also surface presence information, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus intercom_team, intercom_whoami, or intercom_status, nor any stated prerequisites. Discovery-before-join/send is only inferable, and with nine siblings the lack of routing guidance is a real gap.

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