ro_dialog_next

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'advances' a dialog, but does not explain side effects (e.g., does it block? does it return dialog text? does it require the dialog to be in a specific state?), prerequisites, or failure modes. For a tool that modifies dialog state, this is insufficient transparency.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the scope of action, though it omits important details that are scored elsewhere. Structurally, it is front-loaded with the core action and context, which 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description could be considered sufficient for a basic 'click' action, but it leaves out critical context: what preconditions must hold (e.g., is a dialog currently open and waiting?), what timeoutMs influences, and whether there are any side effects like advancing multiple steps. With no annotations or output schema, the agent is left with ambiguous assumptions about how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has a single parameter timeoutMs with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation for it. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its purpose. Given the low coverage, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so. Even a brief note like 'timeoutMs controls how long to wait for the dialog to advance' would be minimal.

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 specific verb ('Advance') and resource ('NPC dialog') with a clear condition ('waiting on a 'next' click'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ro_talk_npc (initiate dialog), ro_close_dialog (close), and ro_menu_select (select menu). An agent can easily determine this is the 'continue/next' action in a dialog flow without ambiguity.

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 implies the tool should be used when an NPC dialog is waiting for a 'next' click, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. For example, it does not clarify whether it is appropriate only after ro_talk_npc or how it differs from ro_menu_select or ro_answer. An agent would need to infer usage based on the name and context.

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