dialogs

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope ('visible' only) and return shape ('texts and buttons as refs'), but says nothing about whether the call blocks, what happens when no dialog is present, or how the refs relate to the ui_* action tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource type and the returned payload are stated immediately.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and that only visible dialogs are included. A note on ref usability with ui_click/ui_type would make it complete.

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. Nothing in the description contradicts or adds burden to the empty schema.

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 (list) and a specific resource type (visible dialogs/popups/secondary windows) plus what is returned (texts and buttons as refs). It implicitly distinguishes itself from generic siblings like ui_tree or screenshot by narrowing to modal/secondary windows, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The intent (find dialog buttons and their refs so they can be clicked) is inferable but left to the agent, and there is no statement about alternatives such as ui_tree or ui_click.

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