dialogue_manage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose substantial behavior (autoload registration, generated UI features, event signals, and overwrite=False), but it never explicitly warns that scaffold_system writes/overwrites project files or modifies project settings, nor does it explain failure/error behavior. This leaves a meaningful transparency gap for a potentially destructive scaffolding operation.

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 organized with a short header and two bullet-style operation signatures, making the two dispatch modes easy to scan. The final canonical-call-shape note is useful but adds length; overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though slightly feature-list-heavy.

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 a multi-operation dispatcher with an opaque params schema and no annotations, the description covers the main operations and call shape well. However, it omits per-operation requirements/validation, the expected structure of nodes, and explicit side-effect warnings, so an agent may still need to infer important details before invoking it correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0% and params is only a generic object, so the description is the only place parameter meaning lives. It provides per-op signatures with defaults and describes the entities involved (e.g., script_path, scene_path, register_autoload, typewriter_speed, nodes, overwrite). It does not fully specify the nodes object structure or the optional session_id field, but it compensates well for the schema's emptiness.

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 states a clear purpose ('Dialogue and Narrative System Management') and enumerates two concrete operations: scaffolding a complete dialogue manager/UI box and creating a branching dialogue graph. These specifics distinguish it from sibling management tools and give an agent a reliable sense of the resource and actions involved.

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 operation-level descriptions imply when the tool is appropriate: scaffold_system for setting up a new dialogue manager UI/singleton, and create_dialogue for authoring a branching dialogue graph. However, there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer alternative sibling tools such as script_manage or node_manage.

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