List Pending Invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no indication of result scope or ordering, no note about whether the list includes only received (not sent) requests beyond the single word 'incoming'. It largely restates what the name and annotations already convey.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy in the prose itself. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument list tool, though it is so terse that it adds little beyond the title.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The return shape is documented by the output schema, so the description need not explain it. Only the absence of any routing hint toward accept/decline keeps this from a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are required.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List incoming pending connection invitations.' An agent immediately knows this returns pending invites, and the 'incoming' qualifier distinguishes it from anything outbound. It does not, however, name the sibling tools (accept_invitation, decline_invitation) it naturally precedes, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus accept_invitation, decline_invitation, or withdraw_connection_request. The 'pending invitations' phrasing hints at the context, but the agent must infer that this is the read step before acting on an invitation. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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