handle_dialog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states only the trigger condition and does not disclose what accept or dismiss do, what happens to the dialog or page, or whether promptText is required for prompt dialogs.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the condition. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, however, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; key details are omitted.

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 complexity (dialog handling with accept/dismiss/promptText options) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what each action does, when to use which action, or what the tool returns.

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 low (33%): only pageId has a description. The description adds no parameter-level information—it does not explain the required action enum values (accept/dismiss), the meaning of promptText, or how pageId interacts with the default selected page.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'use this to handle it' adds little beyond 'handle_dialog'. It specifies a trigger condition ('If a browser dialog was opened') but does not clarify what handling entails (accept vs dismiss, prompt text), leaving the purpose vague.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for use ('If a browser dialog was opened'), which is the primary context. However, it provides no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so it remains minimal.

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