vk_groups_get_invites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states that it 'returns a list', with no mention of side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool that likely requires user context.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming overly verbose.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool returns a list, the description lacks details about the return format, pagination behavior, or what fields are included. offset and count parameters imply pagination, but the description does not confirm this. The description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

All parameters (offset, count, extended) have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no further meaning. The schema descriptions are clear, making a baseline score of 3 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 that the tool returns a list of invitations to join communities and events. Among sibling tools like vk_groups_get, vk_groups_get_requests, and vk_groups_get_invited_users, this tool is distinct and unambiguous in its purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the user must be authenticated or if this returns invites for the current user. The description does not help the agent decide between this and other vk_groups_* tools.

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