intercom_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description is not required to restate it. The description adds a small amount of behavior ('falls back to managed-team discovery') but leaves that fallback undefined — an agent cannot predict what it returns or when it engages. No indication of whether an unknown team name errors or returns empty.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary listing behavior and no boilerplate. The trailing fallback clause is the only part that reads as vague rather than informative.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present. The gaps are the undefined 'managed-team discovery' fallback and no hint about the shape or fields of team entries returned, which matter for deciding whether this call is sufficient.

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 carries the full burden: 'inspect one by name' does establish that the 'team' parameter is a name and that omitting it yields all teams, which is genuine added meaning. It stops short of naming the matching semantics — case sensitivity, exact vs partial match, or behavior on an unknown name.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Show all your named task teams') plus a second mode ('inspect one by name'), which lets an agent distinguish it from intercom_join or intercom_send. It does not explicitly name which sibling handles team membership or listing, so differentiation is only partial.

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 two modes imply the selection rule — omit the parameter to list everything, supply a name to inspect one team — but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this over intercom_list or intercom_join. 'Falls back to managed-team discovery' suggests an alternative path but never says when or why that fallback triggers.

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