browser_handle_dialog

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already state. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not explain what destructive behavior may occur, whether dismissing a dialog can lose input, or any side effects of handling the dialog.

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 short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than conciseness. 'Handle a dialog' is a placeholder-level phrase that does not earn its place by adding meaningful information.

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?

Even though the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, the description lacks essential context about dialog behavior, such as which dialog types are supported, what happens when accept is false, and what the promptText field is used for in practice. This is particularly important because no output schema exists.

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%, so the parameters accept and promptText are already clearly documented. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema carries the full burden adequately, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 'Handle a dialog' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and title. It does not specify what handling involves, such as accepting, dismissing, or providing prompt text, nor does it distinguish itself from the broader set of browser interaction tools.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like browser_click, browser_evaluate, or browser_snapshot.

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