native_file_choose

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond them: it checks ownership/filename, requires confirmation of which workflow opened the dialog, and warns to verify the import afterward. However these hints stay cryptic and never explain consequences or permissions.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences, each adding a distinct constraint (scope, post-action check, platform limitation). No filler, though the phrasing is clipped enough to verge on cryptic.

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?

With no output schema, no annotation detail beyond hints, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves key facts unstated: what dialog_id refers to, what value is returned, and what the destructive selection actually triggers.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only alludes to 'filename' (checked after selection) and says nothing about dialog_id, which is required and presumably comes from a prior dialog-listing call.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: selecting a file in a Windows Firestorm Open dialog. That distinguishes it from generic siblings like native_file_dialogs (discovery) and ui_click, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'freshly discovered' and 'Other platforms need manual selection' imply this follows a dialog-discovery step and is Windows-only, but neither condition nor the alternative tool is stated outright. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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