browser_handle_dialog

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It only repeats the generic action 'Handle' without revealing important behavioral traits such as whether it blocks until a dialog appears, what happens if no dialog exists, or that accepting vs dismissing has side effects. The schema provides accept/promptText details, but the description adds no extra context beyond the name.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no superfluous text. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and two well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks context on when dialogs occur, whether the tool waits or times out, and any prerequisites. This results in clear gaps given the lack of annotations.

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 the parameter descriptions are clear: accept is a boolean for accept/dismiss, promptText is for prompt dialogs. The description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the parameters. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Handle') with a clear resource ('JavaScript dialog') and explicitly lists the dialog types (alert, confirm, prompt). It distinguishes itself from sibling browser tools, none of which handle dialogs.

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 implies usage for JavaScript dialogs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions (e.g., when a dialog appears, or that it should not be used for other UI elements). There is no exclusionary guidance, but the tool's purpose inherently differentiates it from siblings.

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