ig_get_collaboration_invites

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. The description only states the action and a version note; it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, read-only nature, or what happens when there are no pending invites. This is insufficient for a tool that may involve user data.

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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks important context such as return format or usage hints. While it is not verbose, the brevity sacrifices clarity, making it average for conciseness.

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 two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain the return value structure, pagination behavior, or how pending invites are represented. Given the moderate complexity of a paginated list, the description is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with descriptions for 'limit' and 'after' already provided in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond those definitions, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get pending collaboration invites for the Instagram account.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'pending collaboration invites' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like 'ig_respond_collaboration_invite' which handles responses.

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. Although a sibling 'ig_respond_collaboration_invite' exists, the description does not mention that this tool should be used first to list invites before responding. There is no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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