openai_get_invite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It makes clear this is a read operation ('Get') and mentions the response includes status. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., not found) or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 minimal and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a concise Args note. Every sentence adds value, and the cross-reference is useful without padding.

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 single-item retrieval with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, resource, and ID sourcing. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing error behavior, but the straightforward scope keeps this from being a major gap.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining 'The invite's ID (see openai_list_invites)'. This adds provenance and directs the user to the correct source, going beyond the schema's bare 'Invite Id' label.

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?

Description states 'Get a single invite's details, including its status' – specific verb (get) and resource (invite). The word 'single' clearly distinguishes it from openai_list_invites.

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?

Usage context is implied by the purpose ('Get a single invite's details') but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions. The reference to openai_list_invites for finding the ID hints at workflow but does not explain when to prefer this tool over list or delete.

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