github_orgs_list_pending_invitations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states the operation without disclosing behavioral aspects such as required permissions, pagination behavior beyond schema, or what happens when no invitations exist. Minimal disclosure for a read-only operation.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single clear phrase. No unnecessary text, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the response contains (e.g., invitation objects with fields like role, expiration). The tool has multiple filtering and pagination parameters, but the description does not hint at their purpose or usage context. Incomplete for the complexity of the 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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters (org, per_page, page, role, invitation_source). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 organization invitations' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (pending org invitations). However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like github_orgs_list_failed_invitations or github_teams_list_pending_invitations_in_org, leaving potential ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., team-specific pending invitations). There are no stated exclusions or context cues to help an agent select correctly among siblings.

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