List Workspace Invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the 'pending' scope. It does not disclose response shape, ordering, pagination, or authorization requirements, but for a simple read-only list this is a moderate gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is minimal but appropriate for a tool of this simplicity.

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 list, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits any detail about what fields are returned, how results are ordered, or where workspaceSlug comes from. Since there is no output schema, a bit more return/usage context would make it more robust.

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 description does not explain what workspaceSlug should contain, how to obtain it, or how it affects the results. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('list') and a specific resource ('pending workspace invitations'). This distinguishes it from siblings such as revokeWorkspaceInvitation, acceptInvitation, declineInvitation, and getInvitation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getInvitation or listWorkspaceMembers. It also does not mention any prerequisites or context such as needing to review invitations before revoking or accepting them.

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