list_workspace_invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results include both pending and past invites, which is meaningful given there is no output schema, plus the required scope 'workspaces:invites'. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or result size.

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?

Three short clauses with zero filler; the resource and its contents come first and the negative constraint follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described single parameter, this covers resource, result scope, auth scope and the creation gap. Only pagination/result-shape behavior is absent, and no output schema exists to compensate.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'Workspace ID', so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the id parameter beyond that.

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 identifies the resource ('The workspace's invites') and its scope ('pending and past'), and the sentence about creation being dashboard-only helps separate it from invite-management siblings like revoke_workspace_invite or preview_workspace_invite. It never uses an explicit verb such as 'list', so the read action is only implied by the name.

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?

'Creating an invite is dashboard-only' is a useful negative guideline that stops the agent searching for a create tool. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over revoke/preview/accept/decline_workspace_invite, or on prerequisites such as admin permissions.

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