get_pin_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only hints at the recommendation basis (user interests and content quality). It does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The description is minimal and lacks operational transparency beyond the algorithm's intent.

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 with no redundant information. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is front-loaded with the action, making it easy to parse.

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 has no output schema, so the description should help the agent understand what to expect, but it offers no hints about return format or behavior. It also lacks context on how parameters interact (e.g., how user_interests are used) and does not differentiate from sibling recommendation tools, leaving significant gaps for a tool with this simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already documents each parameter (limit, exclude_ids, content_types, user_interests). Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 function: '获取个性化沸点推荐' (get personalized pin recommendations), which identifies the verb and resource. It also adds context by mentioning it's based on user interests and content quality, but it does not distinguish this from similar sibling tools like get_user_recommendations or get_simple_recommendations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or comparison with sibling recommendation tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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