invites_get

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by explaining the input accepts a full URL with prefix stripping, and that return values include raw guild/channel names with a separately fenced `untrusted_names` copy. This is useful added insight beyond the annotation safety profile.

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?

Well-organized with bold headers, bullet points, and a compact example. Every sentence earns its place—no redundancy or fluff—and the most important information (purpose) appears first.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, complete schema coverage, output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, exclusions, an example, and return behavior. Nothing essential is missing; the output schema handles the rest.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantic detail for `code` (accepts full URL, strips prefix) and provides a usage example, enriching the parameter understanding 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('Discord invite') with a clear method ('by its code or full URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as invites_list_channel (listing invites) and invites_delete (deleting), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide concrete scenarios (inspect an invite before deleting, resolve target guild/channel) and name an alternative tool (`invites_list_channel`) for listing invites. This is clear, direct guidance with exclusions.

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