list_team_invitations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scope ('Qiita Team only') but lacks critical details: whether authentication is required, if it's read-only or has side effects, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with potential access control implications.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a necessary qualification ('Qiita Team only') without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about authentication requirements, output format, error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools. The 'Qiita Team only' scope hint is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (page and per_page with defaults and constraints). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not providing extra semantic value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('pending team invitations') with a specific scope ('Qiita Team only'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_team_memberships' or 'list_users', which could also involve team-related listings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'list_team_memberships' or 'create_team_invitation', leaving usage context unclear.

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