Get invite status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing internal logic: preferring field invites when both exist, and adapting behavior for freeform document groups to include signer emails. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences, each conveying essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains nuances and behavior.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two entity types, invite modes) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers key behavioral aspects: invite mode preference, freeform group handling, and returned modes. No apparent gaps for a read-only tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds practical guidance for entity_type, advising to ensure correct type and suggesting trying alternatives if not found, which aids correct invocation beyond schema details.

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 tool retrieves invite status for a document or document group, distinguishing it from related tools like 'send_invite' or 'cancel_invite'. It further clarifies support for field and freeform invites, and notes the return of invite_mode, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by focusing on reading invite status, contrasting with sibling tools that create or modify invites. It explains preferences (field over freeform) and behavior for freeform groups, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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