avito_save_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: files are downloaded into a folder on disk. However, it omits overwrite behavior, naming/format handling, and any failure or permission caveats, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. The trailing purpose clause adds some value but is the least essential part.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and two of three parameters but leaves 'prefix' and return/error behavior unexplained, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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. It adds real meaning for 'urls' (avito.st addresses from avito_listing) and 'dest_dir' (a disk folder), but the 'prefix' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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+resource: downloads listing photos to a disk folder, and identifies the input source (avito.st URLs from avito_listing). This clearly separates it from siblings like avito_screenshot or avito_listing itself, though the phrase 'для разбора обложек и галерей' is more intent than scope.

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 mention of 'из avito_listing' implies the tool should be used downstream of avito_listing, which is useful routing context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not or any stated prerequisite beyond that inference.

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