get_dialog_status

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a status query. Beyond the annotation, the description discloses the narrow return shape (booleans only, no dialog ID or provenance) and warns that a positive status must not be treated as authorisation to answer — a meaningful guard not present in structured fields. It does not explain failure behaviour when the browser is disconnected.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the primary behaviour, then the return limitation, then the usage trigger. Dense but every clause carries distinct information; the middle clause about authorisation is slightly compressed in phrasing.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, return shape, and call timing. The only gap is what happens on an invalid or expired browser_token.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, with the schema already explaining that browser_token is the private capability token from launch_chrome. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reports only whether the managed browser is connected and whether dialogs remain pending') and explicitly bounds the scope by saying no dialog ID or provenance is returned, which separates it from get_captured_dialog. An agent can distinguish this from all five siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives two concrete invocation points ('before beginning a capture' and 'before resuming Computer Use after a successful response') plus an explicit exclusion ('does not authorise a response'). It stops short of naming the sibling that does return dialog details, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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