intercom_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the 'mark_read' parameter can change state (mark messages as read), nor does it explain the scope ('for this Claude session' is mentioned but without details on session boundaries or side effects).

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 sentence with no redundant words. Every part adds value, achieving maximum conciseness for the intended purpose.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but lacks detail on the parameter's behavior and any side effects. It is minimally viable but could be more helpful with additional context.

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%, meaning the parameter 'mark_read' has no description in the schema. The tool description also omits any explanation of this parameter, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the name alone. This is inadequate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and specifies the resources: 'unread inbound messages and unresolved asks'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like intercom_ask (send an ask), intercom_reply (reply), intercom_send (send), etc., by focusing on reading pending items.

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 when needing to retrieve unread messages and unresolved asks, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., for listing all messages) or compare with alternatives like intercom_list or intercom_status. Guidance is minimal.

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