pinterest_list_boards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does contribute one meaningful trait: the tool is scoped to the authenticated account's own boards. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (despite the bookmark parameter), whether secret or protected boards appear by default, ordering, or response shape. The single scoping disclosure is useful, but the behavioral picture is thin.

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 has zero wasted words and is efficiently scoped, but at six words it is under-sized for a tool with a privacy filter, pagination cursor, and page size control. This reads more as under-specification than as deliberate, high-value conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits default privacy behavior, how pagination via bookmark works, and any indication of what the response contains. A listing tool with a cursor parameter and an enum filter needs more than a scope statement to be invoked correctly and confidently.

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 only 33% (only bookmark is documented), and the description adds nothing about privacy or page_size. The privacy enum values and page_size are partially inferable from their names and constraints, but the description does not compensate for the low coverage. Two of three parameters remain effectively undocumented by both the schema and the description.

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 names the resource (boards) and scope (authenticated account), which makes the intent reasonably clear when read alongside the tool name. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so it describes a result set rather than the action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_pins or search_my_pins.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as pinterest_list_pins or pinterest_search_my_pins. There is no context, exclusion, or alternative mentioned. An agent must infer the distinction purely from sibling names.

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