wrike_list_invitations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists only pending invitations (not all invitations), which is useful, but it does not mention any details like pagination, ordering, or potential permissions required. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is optimally brief while remaining 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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states exactly what the tool does. It could mention that it returns all pending invitations across the account, but the word 'all' already implies that, making the description sufficient for this low-complexity tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or meaning. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately clarifies the action and filter scope.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('pending invitations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wrike_invite_user and wrike_delete_invitation. It is specific and 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 description implies this tool is used when you need to view pending invitations, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. While there are no direct alternative listing tools for invitations, the lack of context keeps this at a mid-level score.

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