client_getInviteInfo

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, safety, or response behavior. It only says 'Return invite information' and 'Return an object'; it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens for invalid codes, or any permission requirements. It provides minimal behavioral 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 very short and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences. There is slight redundancy in stating 'Return invite information' followed by 'Return an object,' but overall it is concise and contains no extraneous content.

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?

The tool is a 2-parameter function with no output schema, so the description should clarify what object is returned, how sessionId relates to invite code, and what displayName is for. It fails to explain the connection between sessionId/displayName and the invite code, leaving significant ambiguity. Sibling tools with clearer semantics exist, increasing the need for specificity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond saying 'invite information.' The 'displayName' parameter's relevance to invite info is unclear, but the schema documents it as 'New display name,' so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('invite information'), and specifies the return is an object about the invite code. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like groupChat_getInviteCode or client_getChannelByInviteCode, and it is unclear which invite code is being referenced.

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 such as groupChat_getInviteCode or client_getChannelByInviteCode. There is no mention of prerequisites, input context, or exclusions. The usage context is entirely implied by the name and sibling namespace.

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