List invites

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the 'active' qualifier, implying expired/revoked invites are excluded, and clarifies scope. No additional behavioral details like pagination or rate limits are disclosed.

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 concise phrase that is front-loaded and contains no redundant content. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose in minimal words.

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 list tool with readOnly annotation and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return format or fields of the invite objects, which is a minor 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?

The input schema covers both `guild` and `channel` with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states 'Active invites for the server or one channel,' clearly indicating a list operation on invites with explicit scoping. It distinguishes from the sibling get_invite (single invite) and create/delete_invite by its verb and scope.

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 implies usage for viewing active invites at server or channel level but does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_invite for a specific invite, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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