cst_dismiss_dialogs

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it finds and dismisses dialogs, returns title and text, supports a read-only mode, and uses Win32 API on Windows. This is transparent about its functionality and platform dependency.

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 three tight sentences covering action, output, and usage context. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage context. There are no obvious gaps.

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 only parameter (read_only) is described clearly with its meaning and default: 'If true, only read dialog content without dismissing. Default: false (read and dismiss).' This adds value beyond the schema's basic type/default.

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 finds and dismisses visible CST dialog windows, listing specific examples (error popups, 'Results Incompatible', solver warnings) and noting it returns title/text before dismissing. This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on modeling, simulation, or project management tasks.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to unblock CST when a modal dialog is preventing further automation.' This provides a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use or mention alternatives, but the specialized nature makes the guidance sufficient.

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