avito_list_cabinets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description goes beyond that by explicitly stating that secret values are never returned and describing the JSON shape. For a safe read-only list operation, this is useful behavioral disclosure without contradiction.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a precise return-shape note and a data-safety guarantee. Every sentence adds value and none repeats the schema.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, active-cabinet semantics, needed fields, and the important secret-nondisclosure behavior. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured cabinets') and clarifies it reports the active cabinet. This distinguishes it from marketplace-specific section/method/cabinet management tools like avito_add_cabinet or avito_get_section.

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 intended usage is implicit: call it to see configured cabinets and the active one for Avito. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or comparison with sibling tools such as avito_use_cabinet or wb_list_cabinets, but the context is reasonably inferable for a zero-parameter read operation.

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