dialogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it includes the policy that resolved each dialog, which is meaningful, but it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., only shows dialogs from the current page, ordering, or whether it includes previously resolved dialogs). It is not contradictory to annotations.

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?

A single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core content. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema), the description fully conveys what the tool returns. The agent has enough to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameter formats since there are none.

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 the specific resource (dialogs) and the content (every alert/confirm/prompt seen, along with the resolving policy). It is clear and distinguishes from the sibling `dialog_policy` (which likely sets policies), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `dialog_policy` or `page_state`. No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided, so the agent must infer when this applies.

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