collaboration_repo_invitations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It correctly indicates read-only behavior. Yet it lacks details on authorization, pagination, or what happens with no invitations. For a simple read operation, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it quick to parse.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return format (e.g., list of invitations with status). It covers purpose and default parameter but misses what data to expect. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'repo' parameter. The description adds value by noting 'Defaults to the plugin default repo', clarifying optionality and default behavior. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., repo name or ID).

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 clearly states 'List pending invitations issued by a repo' which gives a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like collaboration_user_repo_invitations (user's own invitations) and collaboration_repo_collaborators (current collaborators).

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 mentions 'read-only' and defaults to the plugin default repo, implying safe usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like collaboration_user_repo_invitations or provide exclusions.

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