infomaniak_list_drive_invitations

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the scope filter 'pending' which is useful context, but it does not detail return format, pagination, or edge cases beyond what annotations provide. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate 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 a single concise sentence, immediately states the action and object, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, read-only annotations), the description is sufficient. It clearly specifies the resource (pending user invitations) and purpose (access review), and the output schema can handle return details. It lacks only optional guidance on pagination or ordering, which are minor gaps for such a simple 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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (drive_id as 'kDrive identifier'). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List' and the specific resource 'pending kDrive user invitations', with the added context 'for access review'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing drive users or share links, which target different resources.

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 implies a use case ('for access review') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. For example, it doesn't mention that list_drive_file_access_invitations is for file-level invitations, not user invitations.

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