style_dialogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It merely says 'list dialogs/aria-modal' but does not explain what 'list' returns (elements? text?), how tab filtering works, or whether there are any side effects. The brevity leaves the agent without enough behavioral detail.

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 with no filler words, front-loading the core action. Although it may be too sparse for full understanding, that issue is more about completeness than verbosity, so conciseness itself is strong.

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, 11 sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is a single fragment. It lacks information about return format, filtering behavior, relationship to style_tabs, and how to interpret results, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 already documents all three parameters with useful descriptions (tab index, URL substring, title substring), giving 100% coverage. Since the description adds no additional parameter meaning, the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('列出' = list) and a clear resource ('dialog / aria-modal'), which is semantically distinct enough. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like style_find or style_inspect, which could also involve locating elements.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as style_find or style_tabs. The description only gives a terse one-line action, with no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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