Handle Dialog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool affects the 'next native dialog,' implying a one-time effect, but it does not explain what 'handled' means (e.g., auto-accept or dismiss), whether the setting persists, or what happens if no dialog appears. This lack of behavioral disclosure is a gap.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence: 'Set how the next native dialog (alert/confirm/prompt) will be handled. Call before the action that triggers the dialog.' It communicates the core purpose and timing without extra fluff.

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 is stateful and requires understanding of parameter semantics and side effects. While the description gives a key usage hint and there is an output schema, it omits details about how `accept` and `promptText` behave, and whether the handler is invoked for only one dialog or persists. This makes the description incomplete for reliable use.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not define `accept` (boolean), `promptText`, or the role of `sessionId`, relying on the parameter names for inference. This is insufficient for an agent to set parameters correctly, especially since `promptText` is only relevant to prompt dialogs.

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: 'Set how the next native dialog (alert/confirm/prompt) will be handled.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it stands out from sibling tools which focus on navigation, clicks, and sessions rather than dialog handling.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Call before the action that triggers the dialog.' This clarifies when to use the tool in the workflow. It does not discuss alternatives, but no sibling tool addresses dialogs, so the guidance is sufficient.

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