handle_dialog

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

Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false (indicating this is not read-only), the description adds only the precondition that a dialog has been opened. It doesn't disclose what happens when no dialog is present, whether promptText is required for certain dialog types, or any failure behavior. The description could provide more context about the tool's effects on the browser state.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the condition and the action. It contains no filler or redundant information, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a clear schema, the description combined with the schema provides sufficient context. However, the lack of output schema and absence of error handling details (e.g., what happens if no dialog is open) leaves a minor gap, making it not fully complete.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (action with enum values, and optional promptText), covering 100% of the parameters. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool handles a browser dialog, using the specific verb 'handle' with the resource 'browser dialog'. This distinguishes it from sibling browser automation tools like click, fill, and hover which do not target dialogs.

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 a clear condition for use: 'If a browser dialog was opened'. This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but since no sibling tool handles dialogs, the condition alone is sufficient guidance.

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