avito_selfcheck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says the check is 'intentionally non-invasive' and describes exactly what it does: enumerate open page URLs/titles and report whether an Avito tab is visible. This is transparent and sets appropriate expectations for side effects.

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 concise sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable non-invasive context without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns 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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It defines the purpose, scope, non-invasive nature, and the specific signal it reports. An agent has enough information to decide whether and when to invoke it.

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, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

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 action and resource: 'Check whether the MCP server can reach the user-controlled Chrome session.' It also clarifies the exact scope by saying it only enumerates open page URLs/titles and reports whether an Avito tab is visible. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool avito_me, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 description gives clear context for use: this is a non-invasive connectivity diagnostic for verifying access to the Chrome session. It does not state when to prefer avito_me instead, nor does it name any alternatives, but the diagnostic purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when to call it.

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