browser_handle_dialog

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). It does not explain what happens on accept vs. dismiss, how promptText is used, or any side effects or failure modes. Without this, the agent must rely entirely on guesses.

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 only three words, which is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. It omits necessary information and fails to earn its place as a standalone description. The structure does not help the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 complexity (dialog handling with accept boolean and optional promptText) and lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool correctly, what happens in various scenarios, or the expected outcome, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both accept and promptText. The description text adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3, so this is an appropriate score.

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 'Handle a dialog' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'browser_handle_dialog' and provides no specifics about what handling entails (e.g., accept, dismiss, provide text). It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling browser actions or clarify its unique role in dialog management, making it nearly tautological.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, such as how to detect a dialog, whether to accept or dismiss, or how it fits with other browser tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned anywhere in the description.

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