list_workspace_invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the 'pending' filter, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe pagination, error handling, or return format details beyond the output schema. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is direct. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to get the workspace ID. It doesn't detail edge cases like empty results or authorization, but that's minor given the annotations and output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining workspace_id's purpose and referencing list_workspaces() for valid values. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though it could mention the expected format (e.g., UUID) if applicable.

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 (list), the resource (pending invitations for a workspace), and the scope (workspace-specific). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_invitations by explicitly targeting workspace invitations, so an agent can easily differentiate it.

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 clear context: use this to list pending invitations for a workspace, and it even tells the agent how to get valid workspace IDs via list_workspaces(). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_invitations, but the workspace scope is implicit, so usage guidance is strong.

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