inspect_native_file_dialog

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing the 'temporary per-ticket window identity marker' side effect, clarifying that it 'does not activate a window,' and describing refusal behavior. It also explains the verification steps and the 15-second ticket produced for cancel_native_file_dialog. This adds meaningful behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: scope, prerequisites, verification behavior, side effect, returned ticket, and routing advice. It is front-loaded with the core capability and avoids repetition or filler.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers prerequisites, exact behavior, side effects, non-activation, refusal cases, and the link to cancel_native_file_dialog. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be fully spelled out in the description, and the remaining guidance is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and fully compensates by explicitly saying it 'Requires desktop_opt_in=true.' It also ties the boolean parameter to a concrete precondition, which is more useful than the schema's bare default.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'inspect the current foreground Windows native file dialog owned by a registered Chrome or Edge process.' It also distinguishes itself from ordinary-page tools by noting 'Use page/CDP tools for ordinary pages' and refers to its companion sibling cancel_native_file_dialog.

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?

It explicitly states the required precondition 'desktop_opt_in=true and the desktop extra' and gives a clear routing rule: 'Use page/CDP tools for ordinary pages.' It also notes that unsupported or unverifiable native layouts are refused, which helps an agent decide when not to attempt the tool.

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