avito_wait_for_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits beyond the schema: the call blocks until the user acts, and it has a visible side effect of bringing the window to the foreground. It does not disclose what is returned on success vs. timeout, whether the call errors on expiry, or whether the flow state is preserved across the wait.

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 sentences, correctly front-loaded with the blocking wait and followed by the foreground side effect. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

A blocking, human-in-the-loop tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations and no output schema should say more. Timeout behavior, return/error semantics, and the meaning of the reason modes are all missing, leaving the agent unable to reason about failure or to choose the right reason value.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions either parameter. Its wording ('verification or login') loosely maps onto the 'captcha'/'login' values of the reason enum, but the multi-value default of 'any' and the entire timeout_s parameter (including units and default) are left unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it waits until the user completes verification or logs in, in a Chrome window. That is unambiguous and clearly unlike the other avito_* interaction tools (click, type, press), but it never names or contrasts 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?

Usage is implied by the scenario it describes ('passes verification or logs into the account'), which tells the agent this is the tool to call when a captcha or login blocks the flow. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what a caller should do instead, and no statement of what happens if the user never acts.

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