get_pending_invitations

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements. It only states the basic function, which is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, with no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does. It could be slightly more comprehensive (e.g., mentioning that it returns a list), but it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none to document, aligning with the baseline score of 4.

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?

Description explicitly states 'List sent connection invitations awaiting response,' specifying verb (list) and resource (sent connection invitations) with clear scope (awaiting response). It is distinct from sibling tools like accept_invitation or decline_invitation which act on invitations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_inbox (for received invitations) or withdraw_invitation (for managing sent ones). Usage is implied by the description but not formally stated.

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