native_file_dialogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope and failure-mode context beyond the annotations: dialogs must belong to this Firestorm installation, only English common dialogs are recognized, and unsupported layouts fall back to manual selection.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and scope, the second states the limitation. Nothing is wasted and the ordering is good.

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 no output schema and cover from annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and a failure mode. It stops short of connecting the listed dialogs to the sibling selection tool, which would make it more complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List recognized Windows Open-file dialogs owned by this Firestorm installation.' It is specific enough to separate this listing tool from a file-choosing sibling, but it never explicitly names or differentiates itself from native_file_choose or any other 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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'prefer this over X' guidance. The caveat 'English common dialogs only; unsupported layouts require manual selection' implies a fallback path, which is useful context, but the obvious sibling relationship with native_file_choose is not addressed.

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