List device invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint (per-device) but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or ordering. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The parameter description is also concise and informative. No wasted 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 read-only list tool with one well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't mention what the response contains (e.g., invite details, status) or whether there are any pagination/limit considerations, which an agent might need to know.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the deviceId parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the deviceId format (nodeId from tailscale_list_devices, numeric id ok, not the nodeKey), which goes beyond the schema's basic type definition.

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 ('List') and resource ('device invites for a specific device'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tailscale_list_user_invites and tailscale_get_device_invite. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not, but the scope is clear enough.

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 context: it lists invites for a specific device, and the parameter description clarifies the deviceId format. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tailscale_get_device_invite (single invite) or tailscale_list_user_invites (user invites).

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