get_pending_invitations

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 behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does but reveals nothing about whether it's read-only, whether pagination is involved, ordering of results, or what happens when there are no pending invitations. For a read-type operation, the readOnly nature is implied but never stated, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately terse for a zero-parameter list tool. It could arguably be front-loaded with a stronger verb, but given its simplicity, one concise sentence is sufficient.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete in explaining the purpose. However, it doesn't describe the return format or clarify whether pending invitations are incoming, outgoing, or both. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but leaves some semantic ambiguity about what 'pending' encompasses.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (nothing to document). No parameters means there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool requires no input filters or arguments.

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 "List pending invitation / connection requests." uses a clear verb+resource structure. It specifies the tool lists pending invitations/connection requests, distinguishing it from related tools like send_connection_request and accept_invitation. The slight ambiguity between 'invitation' and 'connection request' (are these the same or different entities?) prevents a 5.

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 implies the tool is for viewing pending requests, which naturally contrasts with accept_invitation (act on them) and get_connections (existing connections). However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided. The usage context must be inferred from the sibling tool names.

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