infomaniak_list_drive_file_access_invitations

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

Annotations already mark read-only and idempotent; the description complements with 'Read-only admin inventory' and 'pending access grants,' clarifying the nature of the data. 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and object. Every clause adds value without 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?

With a full output schema and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently scopes the tool. The admin inventory context and file/folder target make it actionable for a simple list operation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions, including how to discover drive_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema.

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 lists file-access invitations for a kDrive file or folder, distinguishing it from drive-level invitations and user/team access lists. The phrase 'Read-only admin inventory for pending access grants' adds operational scope and differentiates it from related tools.

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 specifies the scope ('for a kDrive file or folder') and purpose ('pending access grants'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_drive_invitations or provide exclusion criteria.

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