vk_groups_get_invites

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

The description states 'Access level: read,' indicating no destructive side effects. However, with no annotations provided, more behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, response format) would be helpful. The description is adequate for a simple read operation.

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 concise with 3 sentences covering purpose, VK API method, and access level. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 list-invites tool, the description is mostly complete. However, since there is no output schema, details about the return structure (e.g., list of group IDs or objects) are missing. The 'extended' parameter's effect on output is not explained.

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 input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, so 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 clearly states 'Returns a list of invitations to join communities and events.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies the resource ('invitations to join communities and events'), differentiating it from sibling tools like vk_groups_get (returns groups) and vk_groups_get_requests (returns requests).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. Sibling tools like vk_groups_get and vk_groups_get_requests have related but distinct purposes, but the description does not clarify when to choose this one.

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