List invite links

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already declare the safety profile. The description adds that the tool lists links visible to the current user, which clarifies permission scope, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as default filtering (active vs. revoked) or pagination behavior, though some of that is in the schema.

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. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, this description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, default behavior for 'revoked', pagination via 'limit', or how 'adminId' filters results. The readOnly annotation helps but does not make the tool fully understandable.

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 only 40% (adminId and revoked have descriptions, while peer, limit, and accountId do not). The description only hints that 'peer' refers to a chat, but it does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining the meaning or interaction of the parameters. Minimal value is added beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('invite links') with a clear scope ('current user can see in a chat'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_invite_link, revoke_invite_link, and list_invite_joiners.

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 by stating it lists invite links visible to the current user for a chat, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it does not mention that create_invite_link is for creating, or that list_invite_joiners is for viewing who joined via a link.

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