list_poll_invited_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether the tool returns full user objects, sorting, pagination, or any special behavior regarding pending invites. This is a minimal disclosure with no added context.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. There is zero wasted wording, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks essential contextual details. It does not clarify what the returned list contains (e.g., user IDs, profiles, invite statuses) and does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling 'list_poll_invites'. Given the potential confusion, the description is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'poll_id' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description adds no additional semantic value 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 clearly states the action ('Lists') and the resource ('users who have been invited to a poll'), making the core purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'list_poll_invites', which may serve a similar function, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_poll_participants' or 'list_poll_invites'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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