list_asset_group_invites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that both pending and accepted invites are returned, but it does not explain the scope (e.g., whether these are all invites in the organization or just the current user's), required permissions, or the response format. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a read 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?

The description is a single concise sentence of 12 words, clearly front-loaded with the verb and resource. It conserves space while conveying the essential purpose. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no output schema and only two optional pagination parameters. The description tells what it lists but does not state the scope (e.g., organizational vs. personal), pagination behavior, or return structure. It is minimally adequate but lacks context that an agent would benefit from.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both page and per_page, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so it does not go beyond what the schema already communicates. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 resource as invitations to collections, lightboxes, and storage folders, with a scope of pending and accepted statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invites or list_my_invites by specifying the target types, though it does not explicitly name a direct alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context such as filtering, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implication is that you use it when you need to list these invites, but that is directly inferred from the purpose statement.

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