postifys_list_pinterest_boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The word 'list' indicates a read-only operation, and 'connected Pinterest account' signals a prerequisite. However, it does not describe output behavior, pagination, rate limits, or whether the result includes board metadata such as names and IDs beyond the implied mention of boardId.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant context about why boardId matters. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, identifies the required account context, and hints that boardId is the key value returned. It does not explicitly describe the return shape, but given the simplicity and the implied boardId output, this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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 100%, with pinterestUserId described as 'Pinterest account id from postifys_list_connections.' This is sufficient, so the description does not need to add much. The description's boardId remark is about a downstream requirement, not the input parameter, so it adds little to parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List Pinterest boards for a connected Pinterest account.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like postifys_list_connections, which lists accounts rather than boards. The additional note about boardId being required for publishing reinforces why this tool exists.

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?

It provides useful context: the boards belong to a connected Pinterest account, and boardId is needed when publishing image Pins. This implies when an agent needs board IDs for publishing, it should call this tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool directly competes with this listing function.

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