fetch_pinterest_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the count limit and that pin.it short links are accepted, but it does not describe side effects such as file writing to out_dir, overwrite behavior, failure modes, rate limits, or whether authentication is required. For a download tool, this is insufficient transparency—it appears to write files but does not explain what happens on existing files or errors.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a useful parenthetical about short links. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan. It loses a point because it could be slightly more organized with parameter mentions, but it is otherwise concise.

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 three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It covers the main purpose and two parameters partially, but leaves out behavioral details (e.g., what happens when files exist, error handling) and the out_dir parameter entirely. An agent would have to infer too much to use this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains 'count' (up to count images) and 'board_url' (including short links), but it does not mention 'out_dir' at all. Given that out_dir is a parameter with a default, the description should at least state that it specifies the output directory. The explanation is incomplete, especially since only two of three parameters are addressed.

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 tool's action (download), the resource (full-resolution images from a Pinterest board), and a key capability (accepting pin.it short links). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_pinterest_images, get_pinterest_boards, and get_pinterest_board_info, which focus on searching, listing, or fetching metadata rather than downloading image files.

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 usage context is implied through the verb 'download' and the reference to 'images from a Pinterest board,' but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. For example, it does not say 'Use this when you need to download images; use search_pinterest_images to find boards.' The guidance is indirect and relies on the user inferring from the purpose.

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