intercom_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not disclose effects or nuances like include_self or scope filtering. The phrase 'on this machine' may contradict the scope enum allowing directory/repo, reducing clarity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and easy to parse.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more of the context. It omits parameter meanings, return format, and any details about what 'intercom-connected' means. For agents to invoke this correctly, they need more than this one-liner.

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% and the description does not mention 'scope' or 'include_self' at all. It fails to provide any meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving agents to guess the semantics of the parameters. The phrase 'on this machine' is a poor proxy for the scope parameter.

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 is specific: 'List intercom-connected Pi or Codex sessions' clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like intercom_send or intercom_team by focusing on listing sessions. The phrase 'on this machine' provides scope.

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 implies usage for listing sessions but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or contrast with sibling tools like intercom_whoami. The context is clear but incomplete.

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