xae_dialogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that a pending dialog blocks every COM call, a non-obvious operational trait an agent needs to reason about cascading failures.

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 sentences, no filler, and the blocking warning is placed last for emphasis. The first sentence is somewhat packed (three enumerated return items in one clause) but remains readable.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return formatting, and it instead spends its words on the resource and the blocking behavior. It is nearly complete, with only sibling routing missing.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.

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 names the specific resource it returns (open modal dialogs with title/text/buttons, plus watchdog auto-answer rules and its log), so an agent can tell what will come back. It lacks an explicit verb (list/get) and never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling xae_dialog_resolve, which is what actually resolves these dialogs.

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?

"A pending dialog blocks every COM call" implicitly tells the agent when this matters (when automation is stuck), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to xae_dialog_resolve as the follow-up action once a dialog is found.

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