List board invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the ADMIN/OWNER permission requirement, which is beyond standard annotations. It does not describe return format, but the readOnly annotation lowers the burden and the permission note adds value.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place—no redundancies or filler.

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 straightforward list tool with two well-documented optional parameters and readOnly annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed, for which entity, and who can access it. It doesn't explain the difference between board_id and board_slug, but that's already in the schema. A note about return type would be nice since there's no output schema, but 'list' implies an array. Overall complete for its simplicity.

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% since both parameters (board_id, board_slug) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond stating the tool lists invitations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 identifies the exact resource ('invitations for a board') with the status scope ('pending/accepted/declined'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_board_members, list_board_tags, and list_my_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 clearly implies the tool is for viewing invitations for a specific board, which sets it apart from alternatives like list_my_invitations. It adds a usage prerequisite ('Requires ADMIN/OWNER'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Context is clear enough for a simple read tool.

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