invites_list_channel

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond by specifying 'active' invites (implying expired ones are excluded) and detailing the return object shape. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with bolded section headers (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns) and bullet-like formatting. Every sentence conveys needed information without redundancy or fluff.

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 a single parameter and clear annotations, the description fully explains the tool's scope, usage boundaries with a sibling tool, and the return payload structure. No important behavioral or contextual elements are 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?

The only parameter `channel_id` is fully described in the schema ('Channel to list invites for') with a validation pattern, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level details, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 begins with 'List active invites for a single channel' — a specific verb + resource + scope that clearly distinguishes it from guild-level invite tools. It also explicitly contrasts with `guild_list_invites` (all invites across a guild).

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?

Provides explicit '**When to use**' scenarios (audit invite creators, cleanup candidates) and a '**When NOT to use**' section naming the exact alternative tool (`guild_list_invites`). This gives the agent clear decision criteria.

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