avito_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a side effect (launching Chrome if needed) and the status fields returned (current page, login, blocking), which is useful. It lacks details on timing, authentication requirements, or what 'blocking' entails, so it is partially transparent but incomplete.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the launch behavior and then the reporting behavior. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though the combined actions make it slightly dense.

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?

Given the low complexity, empty schema, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior and the main status fields the agent will receive. It could be more explicit about output format or error conditions, but it is largely complete for this simple status tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. The baseline for zero parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'launches Chrome window for Avito (if not running)' and 'reports current page, login and blocking'. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like avito_click or avito_open, though it does not explicitly name 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?

Usage is implied: the tool can be called to check status or to ensure the browser is running before other actions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over avito_open or avito_listing, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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