Get invitations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that it returns specific fields and 'pending' invitations, but does not explain whether the limit parameter affects pagination or defaults, whether invitations are incoming/outgoing, or any side-effect profile. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentence that is immediately informative, with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and result shape efficiently.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits details an agent might need, such as default limit, result ordering, or connection direction. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema provides type and bounds, but the description adds no meaning about what limit controls or how it affects results. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('pending connection invitations') along with the fields returned (id, profile, sent time). It clearly distinguishes this as a read/list operation compared to sibling tools like respond_invitation or connect, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 usage intent is implied: call this when you want pending connection invitations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus respond_invitation or get_connections_summary, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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