List user invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that accepted invites are not returned, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or response structure. This matches the expected baseline when annotations already provide safety context.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence reinforces the key behavioral constraint without unnecessary detail.

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 read-only, zero-parameter list operation, the description is complete. It identifies exactly what is returned (open user invites) and what is excluded (accepted invites). No additional invocation guidance is needed, and the annotations cover safety.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no additional semantics to clarify. The description is sufficient, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing about parameters that could add confusion.

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'), a precise resource ('open ... user invites for your tailnet'), and explicitly excludes accepted invites. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tailscale_list_device_invites by specifying 'user 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when listing open, not-yet-accepted user invites. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as tailscale_get_user_invite or tailscale_list_device_invites, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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