drive_list_invitations

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: requires authentication and details the return structure including fields like uid, role, invitedByEmail, nodeType. It also clarifies the scope to 'pending' invitations. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, auth requirement, return format, and a workflow/differentiation note. The description is compact, front-loaded, and free of redundant content.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it lists, auth needs, the return shape, and how the result should be used. It also clarifies edge cases (not for folder membership) to prevent misuse.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the return structure, which is relevant since no output schema is provided. There are no parameter details to clarify.

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 pending sharing invitations from other Proton Drive users' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing users to drive_share_status for folder members.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for listing pending invitations and when-not-to-use with a named alternative ('Do not use to list members of folders you own — use drive_share_status instead'). It also explains the workflow of using the returned uid with drive_invitation_accept/reject.

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