avito_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: the scroll exists to trigger lazy content loading. That said, it says nothing about side effects, whether the viewport state persists, or what happens at the top/bottom boundaries.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action before its motivation, with no filler. It is perhaps slightly under-specified rather than padded, but structurally clean.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose but leaves the agent guessing about direction/screens semantics and behavior at scroll limits. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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?

Two parameters (screens, direction) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains neither the magnitude semantics of 'screens' nor the enum values 'top'/'bottom'. With only 50% of parameters even having an enum and no defaults surfaced in the text, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Прокручивает страницу') plus its purpose ('подгрузки ленты и отзывов'), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling actions like avito_press or avito_click. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, which keeps it just below 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 clause 'нужно для подгрузки ленты и отзывов' gives an implicit use condition (call it to lazy-load more feed/review content), which points an agent in the right direction. However, it offers no exclusions, no guidance on when to prefer avito_wait_for_user or repeated scrolling, and no mention of how many scrolls are needed.

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