plane-workspace-invitation-list

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'List pending workspace invitations'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, or whether it returns only unexpired invitations. The word 'pending' adds some clarity but is insufficient.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is largely complete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., list of invitation objects with fields) because no output schema exists, but the agent can infer a typical list result. Minor improvement could clarify scope (e.g., for the current workspace).

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 and 100% schema coverage. The description adds meaning by stating that the tool lists pending invitations with no required inputs. Since there are no parameters, the description adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 uses the verb 'List' and the resource 'pending workspace invitations', clearly specifying the action and the object. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'plane-workspace-invitation-delete' and 'plane-workspace-invite'.

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 prerequisites, context, or that it should be used to view invitations before acting on them.

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