intercom_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the word 'live' which implies real-time current data, but no additional behavioral context like freshness guarantees or potential inconsistencies. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states purpose and argument requirement with no wasted words. Every element earns its place and the structure is immediately parseable.

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 tool with robust annotations, the description gives what the tool does and that no arguments are needed. The phrase 'live coworkers' leaves slight ambiguity (currently online vs. current team roster), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with an empty properties object. The description explicitly states 'No arguments are required,' reinforcing the schema and preventing an agent from inventing arguments. This matches the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Show' and the specific resource: 'your current manager and the live coworkers owned by that manager.' This distinguishes it from siblings like intercom_whoami (shows self) and intercom_list (generic list), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied by the purpose: use when the agent needs to show team structure under the current manager. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when it is inappropriate. The note 'No arguments are required' addresses invocation but not selection criteria.

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