browser_dialog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about what 'handle' entails — whether dialogs are dismissed, accepted, or answered with text — nor what happens to the session when a dialog is handled.

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 words with no wasted text, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place; here there is barely a sentence, and it fails to communicate the tool's actual capabilities.

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?

A dialog tool fundamentally requires explaining what actions are available (accept, dismiss, prompt text) and what the text parameter does. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves an agent unable to reliably invoke this tool for even a basic accept or dismiss interaction.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The description itself adds zero value beyond the schema's 'action', 'text', and 'session' hints; 'Dialog action' and 'Prompt text for accept' remain ambiguous about valid values and format. Baseline 3 applies but no additional information is contributed.

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?

'Handle dialogs' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't name the concrete operations supported (accept, dismiss, prompt input) nor distinguish dialog handling from browser_click or browser_read, which could also interact with UI elements.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus any of the 38 siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., pending browser dialog), no exclusions, and no alternatives named.

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