Get Invitation

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds token-based lookup behavior but does not clarify what happens for invalid, expired, or already-accepted invitations, and it does not leverage openWorldHint to warn that invitation state may change externally. With annotations covering the main concerns, 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 compact sentence with no filler and the key action is front-loaded. It is concise to a fault, but every word earns its place; additional contextual detail could be added without harming clarity.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits what 'details' are returned and does not distinguish invitation tokens from other token types. Since there is no output schema, a bit more return-value context would help an agent know what to expect.

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%, and the only parameter, 'token', has no description in the schema. The description repeats that the lookup is 'by token' but does not explain what kind of token is expected, its format, or how it differs from other token types in the API.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get invitation details') and identifies the lookup key ('by token'). It is clearly a read operation and is distinguishable from sibling actions like acceptInvitation, declineInvitation, and revokeWorkspaceInvitation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with listWorkspaceInvitations.

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 about when to use this tool instead of listWorkspaceInvitations, acceptInvitation, or declineInvitation. The description does not state whether this is a prerequisite step before accepting/declining an invitation or how it relates to workspace-level invitation listing.

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