List invitations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds the status lifecycle values including 'completed (with the new accountId)', which reveals what the returned items signal. It does not describe pagination behavior, but annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds behavioral context around statuses.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the resource and status values. It is compact and informative, though it could be more actionable by adding a usage hint.

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 listing tool with 4 optional params and no output schema, the description plus schema provide a usable baseline. However, it does not mention that results are paginated via cursor/limit, nor does it clarify whether status='completed' includes the accountId in the response. An agent could miss the pagination workflow without inferring it from the cursor parameter.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions; status has only an enum with no description). The description enumerates status values, which complements the enum list but adds no meaning beyond it. It does not clarify pagination fields or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the weight.

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 title and description identify a list operation for invitations and enumerate the statuses returned. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_invitation (single retrieval) and create_invitation (creation), but the description does not explicitly name those siblings or scope the listing (e.g., no mention of filtering by account or time).

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 gives no context for when to use this tool versus cancel_invitation/get_invitation/create_invitation. The status list implies a filtering use-case, and the schema's projectId param hints at scoping, but the description itself provides no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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