list_poll_invites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination, which is a basic behavior. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like, whether type filtering is available (although the schema shows it), or any authorization requirements.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, lacking important context about what constitutes an 'invite' and how it relates to similar tools. It is not as efficiently informative as it could be.

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?

With no output schema and only a one-sentence description, the tool is incomplete for an agent. It does not explain what the list of invites contains (e.g., invite objects, referenced users/channels), what the type filter means, or how to interpret pagination results. The ambiguity with sibling tools remains unresolved.

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 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions pagination generically, but the limit and offset params already convey that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (invites for a poll). It also mentions pagination as part of the purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_poll_invited_users or list_poll_participants, which could cause confusion about what 'invites' refers to.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to other poll-related tools. An agent would have no basis for choosing this over list_poll_invited_users or list_poll_participants.

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