infomaniak_get_account_invitation_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying what the snapshot covers (kSuite, drive, mailbox, kChat access) and that it is a 'current' snapshot. 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, no redundant words. It earns its place by stating both what the tool does and its intended use context.

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?

With a 2-parameter schema, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation. It covers purpose and when to use, and there are no hidden side effects due to readOnly/idempotent annotations.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema (account_id and invitation_id with descriptions), and the description does not add parameter-level syntax or formatting beyond that. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' to name the resource ('single account invitation and its current access snapshot') and clarifies the domain scope (kSuite, drive, mailbox, or kChat access). This clearly differentiates it from sibling mutation tools like infomaniak_manage_account_invitation_access.

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 phrase 'before granting or revoking... access' tells the agent when to call this tool—as a pre-mutation inspection step. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for the actual granting/revoking, so it provides context but not an explicit exclusion/alternative.

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