neko_handle_dialog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that dialogs are auto-accepted by default and that it returns info about the last dialog, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether it handles existing dialogs or only future ones.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. However, it lacks details on persistence (per-session or permanent) and the exact circumstances of when the last dialog info is returned, leaving minor gaps.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description. The description adds value by noting the default behavior ('auto-accepted') and the purpose of prompt_text for prompt() dialogs, complementing the schema.

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 verb 'Configure' and the resource 'automatic browser dialog handling (alert/confirm/prompt)', and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools which focus on other browser interactions like clicking or navigating.

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 indicates that dialogs are auto-accepted by default, implying this tool is used to change that behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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