dialog_detect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers by explaining the detection mechanism is structural (ARIA roles, dialog element, stacked-overlay geometry) and framework-agnostic. This helps an agent trust results across UI stacks. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but 'detect' and the structural explanation strongly imply non-destructive inspection.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first defines what it detects, the second explains the mechanism, and the third gives the calling context. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the output fields, explains the detection method, and gives usage timing. It could be slightly stronger by stating the empty-result behavior when no dialog is present, but that is a minor gap.

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 frame parameter is fully described in the schema, and the tool description does not repeat it. The schema text is slightly inconsistent (default 'all' but says 'main (default)'), so a brief clarification would help, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') with a concrete resource ('modal dialogs, alerts and confirmation overlays') and states the exact information returned (title, message, button labels). It also clarifies the 'visible right now' scope, which distinguishes it from broader DOM or wait-oriented tools.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it after any action that might raise a prompt.' This clearly states when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the timing guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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