intercom_pending

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose that the mark_read parameter may change the state of messages (marking them as read). It frames the operation as a simple read, omitting potential side effects, which is a gap in behavioral transparency.

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 that efficiently conveys the primary purpose. It is appropriately brief, though it sacrifices some necessary detail for brevity.

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 the presence of a boolean parameter that could trigger side effects and the absence of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how mark_read affects behavior, or any prerequisites, leaving gaps for a simple but non-trivial tool.

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?

The sole parameter mark_read is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage) and is not mentioned in the description. The parameter's meaning is left to inference from its name, which does not compensate for the lack of explicit explanation.

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 the specific verb 'Read' to identify the action and names the resource ('unread inbound messages and unresolved asks') scoped to 'this Codex session'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like intercom_send or intercom_reply, which handle outbound actions.

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 the tool is for checking session-specific pending items but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over siblings like intercom_list or intercom_status. There are no exclusionary conditions or alternative recommendations.

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