get_user_input

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'opens a browser-based dialog' but does not disclose whether it blocks execution, returns the input, handles cancellation, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but at the cost of omitting critical details about parameters and behavior. It is underspecified rather than efficiently comprehensive.

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?

With 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description fails to cover essential information like how input_type affects the UI or what the return value is. It is inadequate for proper tool invocation.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does not describe title, prompt, input_type, or default_value. The word 'single-line' hints at text input but is insufficient.

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 opens a browser-based single-line input dialog, specifying the resource (input dialog) and action (get user input). It subtly distinguishes from siblings like get_user_choice by implying free-text input, but could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_choice or show_confirmation_dialog. The description lacks context for selecting the appropriate tool.

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