list_invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description adds genuine context: the return shape (workspace name + copyable accept URL), the account-wide key requirement, and a tier restriction. It does not cover pagination or result 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, constraints, and safety, with no filler. Minor deduction for the stray '[#0cf62c]' artifact trailing the text.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what is returned, the auth requirement, and the plan gating. Only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are given.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List the account's pending invites') and even previews the return payload (workspace name and accept URL). It is easy to distinguish from mutation siblings like invite_member, revoke_invite, and accept_invite, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides an availability constraint ('agency / Enterprise') and a prerequisite ('Needs an account-wide key'), which implies when the tool is valid. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as resend_invite or revoke_invite, leaving usage largely inferred.

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