appflowy_list_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. It only states that the tool lists invitations, without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or pagination. This is minimal transparency for a read operation.

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 sentence of about 20 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition; every word serves a purpose.

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's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the core functionality. It explains what is listed and the optional filter. While it lacks details on return format or edge cases, it is sufficiently complete for a basic list tool.

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 describes the 'status' parameter as anyOf string/null with no enum values (schema coverage 0%). The description adds meaning by listing example values (Pending, Accepted, Rejected), compensating for the lack of schema info. However, it does not specify case sensitivity or exact format, so it only partially adds value.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'workspace invitations', and the scope 'sent to the authenticated user'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like appflowy_accept_invitation by focusing on listing rather than accepting.

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 invitations filtered by status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like appflowy_list_members or appflowy_list_workspaces. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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