intercom_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read-only operation via 'Show' and lists the information included. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors such as whether the connection is established on demand, response format, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple status tool but not rich.

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?

Single sentence with one clause, starts with the intended action, and every word adds information. It is highly concise with no filler.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete by listing the four categories of status data. It does not specify the exact structure of the response, but for a status overview tool, the description sufficiently communicates the scope. Sibling relationships could be clearer, but not required.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter information. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Show' and enumerates specific status components: connection status, active sessions, unread messages, and pending asks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like intercom_send or intercom_team, as it provides an aggregate status overview.

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 use for retrieving a status overview but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over intercom_pending or intercom_list. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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