avito_my_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (cards and tab names) and the special path="" current-page behavior, which is genuinely useful. However, it is silent on auth/profile requirements, whether the call has side effects, and rate limits, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the navigation workflow. No filler. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 browser-automation read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned content, and the tab-navigation workflow, which is most of what an agent needs. The residual gap is that no structured fields cover safety or the meaning of the 'path' values.

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 schema documents nothing about 'path'. The description partially compensates by explaining that path="" targets the current page, but it never explains the default '/profile' or what other valid values mean. It adds some meaning but leaves the parameter under-specified.

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 names a specific resource and scope: the caller's own listings ('Свои объявления') in the active profile, distinguishing it from generic listing siblings like avito_listing. It also states what is returned (cards and tab names). Clear verb+resource, though sibling differentiation is by implication rather than explicit contrast.

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 gives concrete routing guidance: to open a different tab use avito_click(text=...), and to load the current page call avito_my_items(path=""). This names an alternative sibling and the condition that selects each path. It stops short of stating when not to use the tool.

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