skylight_list_recent_invited_emails

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile; the description adds that results are recently-invited addresses and are meant for reuse in event creation. It does not disclose details like ordering, pagination, or the meaning of frameId, but for a simple read-only list this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and immediately gives a practical reason to call the tool. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The core list behavior and intended downstream use are present, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. However, with no output schema and an undocumented optional frameId parameter, an agent cannot fully understand filtering behavior or the exact return shape.

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 0% and the description never mentions frameId or its effect on results. The optional parameter is left entirely unexplained, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List recently-invited email addresses') and pairs it with an explicit use case ('handy for filling create_event invited_emails'). This sets it apart from siblings like invite_user or resolve_member, which concern the invitation process rather than retrieving past invitations.

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?

It clearly signals when to use the tool: before creating an event, to populate invited_emails. It does not spell out exclusions or name alternatives, but the intended workflow is concrete enough to route an agent correctly.

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