tv_dismiss_dialogs

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact button type (close/X only) and limiting to 'known' dialogs, implying a limited set. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, providing actionable behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Close known TradingView upsell/notice dialogs') and adds clarifying details without unnecessary words.

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 simple, parameterless tool, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. However, it could be slightly more complete by defining 'known' dialogs or describing the tool's response when no dialogs are present.

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?

With zero parameters, the description correctly implies no inputs are needed. The baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameters to describe.

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's specific action: 'Close known TradingView upsell/notice dialogs' and emphasizes it only clicks close/X buttons, never primary CTAs. This distinguishes it from other tools that might interact with dialogs differently.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to dismiss unwanted dialogs) and explicitly states what it does not do (never clicks primary CTAs) and that it is non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the uniqueness is implied by the sibling list.

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