openai_list_invites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior via the 'after' cursor and 'limit' parameter, and explains the status field values. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but 'list' implies it. This is adequate and adds value beyond a bare statement.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds relevant status and pagination details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no waste.

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 list tool, the description covers purpose, status values, and pagination. It could mention when to use it versus retrieving a single invite, but the output schema presumably handles return-value documentation. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description fully explains both parameters: 'after' as a pagination cursor and 'limit' as the maximum per page. This adds complete 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 starts with 'List all invites in the organization,' using a specific verb ('list'), resource ('invites'), and scope ('organization'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like openai_get_invite, which retrieves a single invite.

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 makes the intended use clear: to list all invites in the organization. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is unambiguous. It also provides useful status value context (pending/accepted/expired).

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