list_admins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all admins/team members and returns IDs, names, and emails. This is adequate for a simple read-only list operation, though it could optionally mention any implicit filtering or limits.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose and output, the second adds a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return fields, and a usage scenario. It could mention pagination or scope (e.g., 'all' meaning across workspace), but for a simple admin list it is reasonably complete.

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, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it effectively explains the return content beyond the schema, fulfilling the role of adding meaning.

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 'List' and the resource 'Intercom workspace admins/team members', specifies return values (IDs, names, emails), and gives a concrete use case (discovering valid author_id or admin_id). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools focused on conversations, articles, or collections.

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 explicitly suggests when to use the tool: 'Useful for discovering valid author_id or admin_id values.' This provides clear context for the agent, though it does not mention when not to use it or name explicit alternatives. Given the sibling tools are distinctly different, this is sufficient.

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