agent_list_invites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add meaningful behavioral context: it discloses that the call acts as the local credential-store identity and that returned content is untrusted (a prompt-injection warning). It stops short of confirming read-only/no-side-effects behavior or pagination, so it is useful but incomplete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the security caveat. Every sentence carries weight, though the security note could be tied more tightly to the return-value context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the security caveat covers the key risk. Still, it omits any guidance on when to call it versus the related invite/respond tools and says nothing about ordering or pagination, leaving the definition merely adequate.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (status) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents 'pending (default), accepted or declined'. The description adds nothing about the filter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List your channel invites'), which is clear and distinguishable from sibling listing tools like agent_list_channels or agent_list_capabilities. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with the related invite tools (agent_invite_to_channel, agent_respond_invite).

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as agent_respond_invite for acting on an invite. The usage is only implied by the verb 'List', leaving the agent to infer context.

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