List my invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'List'. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the specific return fields (invitation id, workspace, role, status, expiry) and the required auth scope (ADR-0068: members:read). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose and return fields, the second covers auth requirement and references the accept action. Each clause adds value with no redundancy, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope, auth, and related next action. It is complete for its complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is inherently 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics and does not attempt to. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'workspaces you have been invited to', clarifying it lists pending invitations. It further scopes to 'your own pending invitations', distinguishing it from siblings like dropthis_members and dropthis_accept_invitation.

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?

Provides clear context (list pending invitations) and a prerequisite (team-scoped credential with members:read). Names the alternative tool dropthis_accept_invitation for acting on an invitation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to other list tools, though the 'your own pending invitations' scoping reduces ambiguity.

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