conversations_request_shared_invite_list

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions listing (read-only), but omits details like pagination (cursor, limit), filtering (include_approved, user_id), and whether results are limited to the authenticated user's workspace. No mention of authentication or rate limits.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, brevity comes at the expense of missing crucial details, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 complexity (7 optional parameters, output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention filtering, pagination, output format, or any prerequisites. The agent would need to guess the tool's full capabilities.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate. It provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters (e.g., what 'include_approved' does), leaving the agent to infer from parameter names only.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('shared channel invite requests'), making it distinct from sibling tools that approve or deny invites. However, it could be more precise by differentiating from similar listing tools like 'conversations_list_connect_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to list approved vs pending invites, or how it differs from 'conversations_list_connect_invites'. The description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.

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