List Micro project invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful security-relevant context beyond those annotations by stating that acceptance tokens are deliberately not exposed and that only bounded metadata is returned. This is a concrete behavioral guarantee that helps an agent choose the tool safely.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the resource scope, and a key behavioral constraint in under ten words, which is ideal for agent consumption.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations, this description is complete enough. The only notable gap is explicit sibling routing, which is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness gap.

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 documents the single optional path parameter with its own description and default behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed since schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('bounded invitation metadata'), and adds a meaningful qualifier: acceptance tokens are not exposed. This clearly distinguishes the read-only listing tool from sibling invitation tools like micro_invitation_create and micro_invitation_revoke.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to list invitations for a Micro project. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, does not name alternatives, and leaves the agent to infer context from the word 'List' and the sibling tool names.

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