List team invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully stated. The description adds that this lists only 'pending' invites (not all invites), which is useful filtering context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or whether the response includes both sent and received invites.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words. The description is appropriately minimal for a simple read-only listing tool. Every element (list, pending, team invites, project) carries meaningful information.

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 read-only listing tool with good annotations, no output schema, and 3 params (1 required), this is reasonably complete. The main gaps are pagination behavior (cursor/limit interplay) and whether results include invite status variants. But given the low complexity and strong annotation coverage, a modest description suffices.

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 only 33% (only project_id is described in schema). The description uses 'pending' to signal scope but doesn't elaborate on limit/cursor semantics beyond what the schema's min/max reveals. The description adds modest value by clarifying the listing scope but leaves the cursor pagination pattern implied rather than explicit.

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 'List pending team invites for a project' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (team invites) with clear scope (pending, for a project). It distinguishes from siblings like list_team_members, create_team_invite, and revoke_team_invite by focusing on pending invites rather than members or invite mutations.

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 clearly indicates this operates per-project ('for a project'), which is the core usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only listing purpose is clear from the tool name and siblings. Lacks explicit exclusion of other invite-related tools.

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