get_pending_invitations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', indicating it is a safe operation. It also mentions the inclusion of urn/sharedSecret for received invitations. Lacks details on pagination boundaries beyond count parameter, but is otherwise transparent.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a dash. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes key details without waste.

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 description covers the basic purpose and mode (read-only), but does not describe the full output structure beyond the urn/sharedSecret for received invitations. Given the absence of an output schema, more details about return fields (e.g., timestamps, sender info) would improve completeness for an agent.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the two queues. Baseline score of 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 verb 'list' and the resource 'pending connection invitations', distinguishing between received and sent. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like connect_with_person.

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 clear context by explaining that received invitations include an urn/sharedSecret for later acceptance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool connect_with_person implies usage for sending.

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