dialog_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so. There is no mention of side effects, permissions required, or what happens after the dialog is opened. The description is a tautological statement of the tool's name.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information. While it is front-loaded, it lacks necessary details to be considered effective.

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 complexity of the tool (nested object parameter, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, parameter semantics, or any behavioral context. The agent would be left guessing how to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no parameter descriptions. The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of 'dialog' or 'trigger_id'. The dialog parameter is a complex nested object with additional properties, yet no structure or example is provided.

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 action and resource: 'Open a dialog with a user.' It is specific to the dialog_open tool, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like conversations_open or views_open that also involve 'opening' something. The verb and resource are clear, but the uniqueness is not emphasized.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Among many sibling tools with similar actions, this omission leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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