todoist_invitations_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get all ... invitations') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no invitations exist. It is minimally adequate.

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 sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by specifying that the result is a list, but 'Get all' sufficiently implies a collection. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the simplicity of the tool.

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), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given no parameters exist. The baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'pending project sharing invitations', and the scope 'received by the current user'. It effectively distinguishes this read-only retrieval from sibling tools like todoist_invitation_accept and todoist_invitation_reject.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like todoist_invitation_accept or todoist_invitation_delete. However, the name and context imply it's for viewing pending invitations. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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