intercom_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scopng context—'intercom-connected Pi or Codex sessions' and 'on this machine'—but does not disclose return format, ordering, filtering, or other runtime behavior. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The verb 'List' and the key resource and location qualifiers are front-loaded, making the core purpose immediately clear.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description is usable and the annotations provide the safety context. However, the two optional parameters are not semantically explained, no output schema exists to clarify return values, and there is no guidance distinguishing this from status/pending siblings, so the description is not fully self-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 must compensate for missing parameter meaning. The phrase 'on this machine' weakly aligns with the default scope=machine, but the description does not explain the directory/repo scope values or the meaning of include_self at all.

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 'List' with a clear resource: 'intercom-connected Pi or Codex sessions' on 'this machine'. This differentiates it from siblings like intercom_reply, intercom_send, and intercom_ask, which are communication actions, and from intercom_status/intercom_whoami, which query status or identity rather than enumerate sessions.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to enumerate local intercom sessions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as intercom_status or intercom_pending. There are no clear exclusions or alternative routing clues beyond the verb and resource.

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