avito_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose the return format (image data, URL, or file path), default capture behavior, required permissions, or any side effects. For a screenshot tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core action ('Снимок текущей страницы') followed by the selection condition. No words are wasted, and the structure is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter screenshot tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify what the tool returns (e.g., image blob vs. saved file) and how full_page changes behavior. Neither is covered, leaving key gaps for correct invocation.

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 schema has one parameter, full_page, with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions this parameter or explains what toggling it does (viewport vs. entire page). With schema descriptions absent, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's effect 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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Снимок текущей страницы' (snapshot of current page). It also hints at differentiation from text-oriented siblings by noting it is for when visual appearance matters ('когда важно, как она выглядит'). However, no sibling is named, so it falls short of the 5-level clarity seen in definitions that explicitly route to alternatives.

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?

Provides a clear selection condition: use when the visual appearance of the page matters, with concrete examples like covers and layout ('обложки, вёрстка'). It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide it is the visual capture tool rather than a text-reading tool.

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