list_my_invites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read and scopes it to the authenticated account, but it does not mention whether only pending invitations are returned, whether any state changes occur, or what happens if no invitations exist. The output schema covers return shape, but behavioral details beyond that are sparse.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and scope are all front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It identifies what is being listed and for whom, and the output schema handles return structure. Nothing else is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Schema description coverage is vacuously 100%, and the description has no parameter meanings to add because none exist.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('invitations addressed to the authenticated account'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like invite_person (sending invitations) and accept_list_invite (acting on invitations), as well as from list_my_lists and list_shared_with_me.

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 phrase 'addressed to the authenticated account' implies the tool is for viewing the caller's own incoming invitations, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus accepting invitations or listing shared items. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; the usage context is present but only implied.

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