List Invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only pending invitations are returned (not accepted, revoked, or expired), but says nothing about ordering or result limits. Some added value, not rich 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource scope comes before the optional filter clause.

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?

With an output schema present and every parameter documented, the description supplies what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and default ordering, but nothing essential is missing.

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 limit, query, and cursor are all documented in the schema, including cursor's next_cursor semantics. The description's mention of the email filter duplicates the schema and adds no format or matching detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pending invitations to the workspace') with a clear scope qualifier. This distinguishes it from the other list_* siblings such as list_workspace_members and list_space_members, which cover accepted members rather than invitations. It is clear, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 'optionally filtered by a part of the email' phrase implies when to pass query, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus resend_invitation/revoke_invitation or the member lists. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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