browser_handle_dialog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool handles browser dialogs (e.g., alert/confirm/prompt), what happens when promptText is provided, or any side effects. Essentially none of the behavior is disclosed.

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 conciseness. A single phrase that adds no information 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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is insufficient to understand the tool's purpose, acceptable inputs, or behavior, which is a serious gap for any tool invocation.

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 adds nothing about the parameters. The action enum (accept/dismiss) and promptText are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone.

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 '处理对话框' merely restates the tool's name ('handle dialog') without specifying the action or resource context. It does not explain what handling a dialog involves (accept/dismiss), and fails to distinguish this tool from any other browser sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about dialog types or conditions under which accept or dismiss should be chosen.

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