list_my_invites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (listing pending invites) but does not disclose details like output format, pagination, or read-only nature (though 'List' implies it). It adds context by specifying 'pending' and 'org' but lacks deeper behavioral transparency.

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, well-structured sentence. It is concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy.

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, zero-parameter tool, the description is largely complete. It specifies the resource (org invitations), scope (current user), and status (pending). Given the lack of an output schema, a brief note on return shape could enhance completeness, but it's not necessary for basic usage.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema already completely covers the empty input. The description correctly adds no parameter details, earning the baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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), the resource (pending org invitations), and the scope (addressed to the current user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invites and accept_my_invite, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to see the current user's pending organization invitations. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'current user' scope inherently differentiates it from other invite-related tools. No exclusions are needed.

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