statistica_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 discloses that a dialog is opened in the running STATISTICA window and captured to an image, and hints at a two-level panel structure, but omits side effects (does opening a dialog mutate state? does the process persist?) and whether the capture can fail if the window is not present.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the one usage hint placed at the end. Efficient, though the parenthetical example list is slightly cluttered.

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 10-parameter tool with a nested properties object and no output schema, the description covers the core flow but says nothing about the mode/attach/title/path parameters or what the returned image represents. The high schema coverage compensates, but the description is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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 90%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description's only added semantic is the `run:true` behavior, which the schema already explains ("Call Run before capture (to reach the Transformations panel)"). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Open an analysis module dialog ... and capture the actual setup panel to an image") with concrete examples (Time Series/Forecasting, Transformations tabs). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling statistica_screenshot, which appears to be a very similar capture operation.

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 note "Use `run:true` to advance to the second-level panel" gives implied usage for one parameter, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over statistica_screenshot or how it relates to the open/run_analysis siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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