browser_handle_dialog

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context, such as whether accepting a dialog may submit a form or whether false dismisses the dialog. Without additional explanation, the destructive implications are vague. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description does not enrich them.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load any useful scoping or behavior and every word simply repeats the tool name. A one-sentence description that omitted critical context does not earn its place.

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 tool's destructive hint, lack of output schema, and optional promptText parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on accept=false, when promptText is required, or what types of dialogs are handled. The agent would need external knowledge to invoke this correctly in many situations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both accept and promptText sufficiently. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema carries the full burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Handle a dialog' merely restates the tool name without specifying what handling entails, such as accepting or dismissing a browser dialog. It lacks the specificity needed to distinguish behavioral outcomes from the name itself. This is tautological rather than informative.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling browser tools. There is no mention of dialogs being modal or that promptText is needed for prompt dialogs. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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