handle_dialog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some value by defining dismiss, accept, and manual, including that manual 'reports the dialog without choosing.' However, it does not disclose timeout behavior, what happens if no dialog is present, whether the call blocks, or how prompt_text is used. That leaves significant behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 with the main verb-resource statement first and the action list second. Every sentence adds information, and the clarification of manual behavior is compact and useful. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has four parameters and zero annotations, so the description must supply practical invocation context. It omits how the target tab is identified, what prompt_text is for, timeout semantics, and the content of a manual report beyond 'reports the dialog.' This is insufficient for correct invocation in edge cases such as prompt dialogs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the required action parameter's possible values. The timeout, session_id, and prompt_text parameters are left entirely to their names and defaults, which is insufficient for an agent to know how to fill them correctly. The partial clarification of action is not enough coverage for four parameters.

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 states the tool's job with a specific verb and resource: it inspects or handles a JavaScript dialog on a tab. It also enumerates the action modes, making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly position itself against the sibling resolve_leave_dialog, so it loses a point, but the core purpose is clear.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternative dialog-related tools. The action semantics imply it is for dismissing, accepting, or reporting dialogs, but an agent is left to infer when to select this over something like resolve_leave_dialog. This is below the clear-context bar.

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