Handle a dialog

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

The description explains that the tool will either accept or dismiss a dialog and indicates the supported dialog types. Annotations do not contradict this behavior. It could mention side effects (e.g., dismissing may cancel navigation) but the core behavior is transparent enough given the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the main action and then adds essential timing context without any redundant or extraneous words.

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?

The description provides enough context for correct invocation, including dialog types and timing. It does not describe the absence of a return value or what happens if no dialog is pending, but these details are not necessary for the basic use case and the tool is simple enough that the provided context is adequate.

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?

Both parameters are covered by the schema descriptions with clear meaning: 'accept' indicates acceptance versus dismissal, and 'promptText' is for entering text into prompt dialogs. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: accepting or dismissing a pending JavaScript dialog. It lists the relevant dialog types (alert, confirm, prompt, beforeunload), which distinguishes it from other browser action tools and leaves no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 practical timing guidance by instructing to call the tool immediately after the action that opened the dialog. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or edge cases, the guidance is sufficient for correct usage in the typical dialog-handling flow.

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