avito_press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully flags that Enter in a messaging context is gated behind confirm=true, but it does not say what a keypress triggers generally (navigation, submission, potential side effects) or how the call behaves outside that one special case.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the caveat follows. The trailing ellipsis in the key list makes the enumeration slightly loose but costs little.

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 simple two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema keypress tool, the description covers the action, example inputs, and the one safety-relevant constraint. A note on return value or general side effects would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it illustrates valid values for 'key' and explains the meaning and default behavior of 'confirm' via the messaging-Enter rule. It does not, however, clarify confirm's scope for keys other than Enter.

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?

States a specific verb (presses) and resource (a keyboard key) and enumerates concrete examples (Enter, Escape, Tab, ArrowDown, PageDown). This implicitly separates it from typing/submitting siblings like avito_type, but it never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops 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?

It gives one conditional rule: 'Enter in messages — only with confirm=true', which tells the agent when confirm is mandatory. However, it offers no general when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as avito_type for text entry, leaving the primary routing decision to inference.

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