browser_handle_dialog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers none. It does not explain that 'accept' determines acceptance/dismissal, that promptText supplies input to prompt dialogs, or that a dialog must be open. The single generic verb 'handle' reveals nothing about side effects or requirements.

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 short phrase, which is certainly concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficiency. The phrase contains no waste but also lacks substance needed for a standalone understanding.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is minimal and fails to convey essential context such as what happens when a dialog is handled, whether it dismisses the dialog, or what the return behavior is. It is inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (accept: accept or reject; promptText: input text for prompt dialog; _agent_id: isolation key). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '处理 alert/confirm 弹窗' uses a specific verb (handle) and resource (alert/confirm dialogs), clearly distinguishing it from sibling browser tools like click, type, and navigate. While 'handle' is somewhat generic, the resource is unambiguous and it is the only dialog-handling tool.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be invoked when a dialog is present, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely a purpose statement with no usage context.

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