user_invitations_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the verb by specifying default limit, max limit, pagination metadata, and supported sort fields. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only list endpoint and the 'list' verb implies safety.

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 and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by two clear operational bullets. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters and no annotations, and the output schema exists but does not explain parameter usage. The description covers core list behavior, pagination, and sort, but lacks explicit guidance on filters and include semantics. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but leaves notable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents valid sort values and the default/max limit. However, it leaves filters, include, and visible_apps_limit completely unexplained, so parameter semantics are only partially covered.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource combination: 'List all user invitations.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like user_invitations_get (single invitation) and users_list (different resource) by explicitly stating it lists invitations.

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 operational context (default limit, max, pagination, sort options) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as user_invitations_get or users_list. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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