get_team_invitations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of returning only 'pending' invitations, which is useful context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, auth requirements, or response structure, though for a simple read-only list this is somewhat expected.

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, concise sentence of nine words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes value without redundancy.

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 simple (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema). The description states the basic purpose but omits details about the return format, error cases, or whether the list is ordered/filtered beyond 'pending'. While adequate for a basic list, it leaves gaps that an agent might need to resolve through assumptions.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'teamId' with a basic 'Team ID' description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Get list') and resource ('pending invitations') with a scope ('for a team'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_team_invitations and delete_team_invitation, which involve different operations on the same resource.

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 pending invitations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The 'pending' qualifier hints at a specific filter, but no comparisons to sibling tools are made.

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