list_invites

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses scope ('pending', 'accessible to the current authenticated user') and implies read-only behavior, but does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, or that it does not mutate state. These are useful but not critical for a simple list operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the most important scoping information ('pending', 'accessible to current user') appears immediately.

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 low-complexity list operation with fully documented pagination parameters, the description is adequate. It would benefit from mentioning that the response is a paginated list with a nextCursor, since no output schema exists, but the schema's cursor and pageSize descriptions largely compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cursor and pageSize with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which yields the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('pending invitations'), and a clear scope ('accessible to the current authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_invite/reject_invite (which act on invites) and list_shares (which list shares, not invites).

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 usage: it is for viewing pending invites available to the authenticated user, which naturally precedes accept/reject actions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the workflow from sibling names.

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