list_invites

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates 'List', implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention scope (organization or user-level), pagination, ordering, or any side effects. This is minimal and lacks necessary context.

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, grammatically valid sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool that supports filtering and pagination; it could be more informative without being verbose. It is not as effective as a well-structured description that includes usage context.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and multiple sibling tools. The description is too brief to cover usage scope, return format, or how it differs from related tools like 'list_my_invites'. This inadequacy makes it hard for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 fully describes all three parameters (q, page, per_page) with a coverage of 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic context about how these parameters behave beyond the schema, so no additional credit is warranted.

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 ('pending invites'), making the core purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'list_my_invites', which likely has a different scope (organization-wide vs. user-specific 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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'list_my_invites' or 'find_invite'. The description simply states the action without any contextual hints, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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