pinterest_connection_status

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 discloses that the check is local and that tokens are not exposed, which is a useful privacy behavior. However, it doesn't state whether this is a safe read-only operation, whether it can error, or what happens if no account is configured.

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 that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and includes a security caveat, making every word earn its place.

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 (0 params, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand what it does and when to call it. The absence of a stated return format (boolean vs text) is a minor gap, but 'Returns whether' strongly implies a boolean. The sibling context is handled fairly well with the 'locally' qualifier, though an explicit alternative reference would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it adds value by clarifying the nature of the returned status. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description introduces no parameter-related confusion.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource (whether a Pinterest account is connected locally). It differentiates from siblings like pinterest_server_status by specifying 'locally' and adds the important security context of not exposing tokens.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies the tool is for checking local connection status, but it doesn't compare with pinterest_server_status or explain when to prefer this over the authorization or disconnect sibling tools. It is clear enough but lacks explicit usage guidance.

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