dialog_handle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool is a pre-arm handler, implying it prepares for a dialog, but does not disclose behaviors like what happens if multiple calls are made, if no dialog appears, or if the action parameter is invalid. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits details about parameter semantics (action values, text usage), which are necessary for correct invocation. It is not fully complete given the lack of parameter documentation.

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%. The description does not explain the meaning or valid values for the 'action' parameter (e.g., accept, dismiss) or the 'text' parameter (for prompt dialogs). It adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a pre-arm handler for the next alert/confirm/prompt dialog, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dialog_auto_handle by explicitly noting the timing (call before action).

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call BEFORE action that triggers it.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like dialog_auto_handle, which slightly lowers the score.

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