list_workspace_invites

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint all safe. The description adds the crucial behavioral context that creating invites is dashboard-only (not via API), which informs the agent that this tool is purely observational. It also implies invites include both pending and past states, which is beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first defines scope (pending and past) and the second clarifies creation is not possible via this tool. No waste.

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 the tool is a simple list with a single parameter and annotations defining safety, the description covers the essential purpose and limitation. It doesn't describe return values (no output schema but that's not required), or pagination/ordering, but for a straightforward list tool it's arguably adequate. Minor gap: no mention that invites are workspace-scoped, but the description says 'workspace's invites' so that's covered.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with id described as 'Workspace ID', so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't clarify the format or constraints of id, but the schema is adequate.

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 tool lists invites (pending and past) for a workspace, with the resource being workspace invites. It distinguishes itself from invite-related mutation tools (create, revoke, preview, accept, decline) by noting creation is dashboard-only, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like list_members or list_apps, though the resource name is self-explanatory.

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 usage for viewing invites, and the note about creation being dashboard-only hints at when NOT to use this tool (for creating invites). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_members or provide conditions for when to call it. The scope note adds context but no explicit routing to siblings.

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