browser_handle_dialog

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain that the tool requires an active dialog, what happens to the dialog after handling, or that prompt dialogs may need text input beyond the schema.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it omits important context. While not verbose, it is under-specified, earning a middle score.

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 role in browser automation and the presence of many sibling tools, the description fails to explain its context (e.g., only works when a dialog is open) or how it fits into a workflow. No output schema exists, but the description does not compensate by describing return behavior.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'accept' and 'promptText'. The description adds no extra meaning but does not need to, as the schema is sufficient. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Handle a dialog' is slightly more specific than the name, indicating the tool deals with browser dialogs. However, 'handle' is a generic verb and does not specify whether it accepts, dismisses, or inputs text, leaving the purpose somewhat 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool, such as after a dialog appears or as an alternative to other browser tools. The description lacks any contextual cues for selecting it over siblings like browser_click or browser_navigate.

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