sonchat_invites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the admin key requirement, which is a useful authentication context, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the return format, error behaviors, or any rate limits, leaving gaps for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a key requirement without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a prerequisite, but it lacks detail about what the response includes (e.g., token format, metadata) or any edge cases. It is minimally sufficient but not fully 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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe, which is acceptable and consistent.

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 tool's function: 'List all active invite tokens for SonChat.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active invite tokens'), and the scope ('for SonChat') distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonchat_create_invite and sonchat_revoke_invite.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing to list invite tokens) and notes a prerequisite (requires SONCHAT_ADMIN_KEY), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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