app_dialog_tab

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavioral trait: that controls on non-selected tab pages are invisible to app_set_dialog_control and were previously misreported as absent. It also states that listing reports which page is selected. It does not say whether switching persists, requires an open dialog, or errors on unknown names.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then a short rationale and the no-name rule; every sentence earns its place. The all-caps historical aside ('Nothing could switch one...') is slightly long-winded but it teaches a genuine gotcha, so it is defensible rather than wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted. But for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the dialog-targeting parameter and error behavior unexplained, which is not enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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. It only implies that ``name`` is a tab page name and that omitting it triggers listing mode; ``dialog_title`` is never mentioned at all, leaving the agent unable to know how the target dialog is chosen or whether it defaults to the active dialog.

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?

First sentence states two concrete operations on a concrete resource: list a dialog's tab pages, or switch to one. The rationale paragraph explicitly distinguishes it from sibling app_set_dialog_control, so an agent can see why this tool exists. Not a 5 only because the dual mode (list vs. switch) is signalled purely by presence/absence of a parameter rather than stated as two distinct behaviors.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: property dialogs hide controls behind tabs, and app_set_dialog_control only sees the front page, so you must switch tabs before reading controls there. The no-``name`` case is explicitly designated as the listing mode. Missing any statement about prerequisites (is a dialog required to be open?) or what happens when the named tab does not exist.

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