list_invites

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cursor-pagination, a key behavioral trait, but does not mention return format, default filtering, or any other side effects or requirements. Given the absence of annotations, more transparency would be expected.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core function and includes no unnecessary words or details.

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 list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits return structure details and default behavior (e.g., whether all invites are returned when no filters are applied), which could leave an agent uncertain. However, the essential listing function and pagination are clear, making it adequate but not complete.

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 schema already describes three of four parameters (cursor, page_size, assessment) with status lacking a description. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning pagination, which relates to the cursor parameter. With 75% schema coverage, a baseline 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 states a specific verb (List), resource (invitations), and scope (across assessments), and mentions cursor-pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from get_invite, which retrieves a single invitation, and other invite-related tools.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_invite or cancel_invite. The description implies a listing operation but does not state its role among siblings or any exclusions.

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