intercom_status

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 fully covered. The description adds the specific status elements returned, which is useful but does not add behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a clear list of included items. Every word contributes information; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with safety annotations already provided, the description is nearly complete. It names all reported categories. However, it leaves minor ambiguity about how 'pending asks' relates to the sibling intercom_pending tool, which could be clarified without much extra text.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to describe, the description's silence is appropriate. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and nothing is lacking.

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 and resource ('Show intercom connection status') and enumerates concrete contents: connection status, active sessions, unread messages, and pending asks. It clearly distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings like send/reply/ask, though it does not explicitly differentiate from intercom_pending, which may overlap on 'pending asks'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes intercom_pending and intercom_list, which could serve similar informational purposes, but the description never mentions them or gives selection criteria. The usage context is entirely implied.

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