intercom_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is a read-like operation ('Show') and specifies that no arguments are needed. However, it does not disclose details such as whether the 'live' status reflects real-time data, any side effects, or the exact return format. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 conveys the purpose and parameter requirement with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and that no arguments are required. However, the lack of an output schema and the description not detailing the expected response shape leaves a slight gap, though not critical for such a simple 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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'No arguments are required,' which reinforces the schema and removes any ambiguity, even though the schema already implies this. It adds a small but helpful confirmation.

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 ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource (current manager and live coworkers owned by that manager). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like intercom_whoami or intercom_list, which focus on other aspects of the intercom system.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool (to see your manager and coworkers) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'No arguments are required' offers a hint about usage but is more about parameter expectations than usage scenarios.

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