dismiss_dialog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only states the action without describing side effects, error conditions (e.g., behavior if no dialog is present), or whether it works on all dialog types. This lack of behavioral detail limits safe and correct usage.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify return values, error handling, or relationship to the sibling 'accept_dialog'. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more contextual completeness to guide proper invocation.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so no param details are needed. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name; it essentially repeats it. While zero parameters set a baseline of 4, the description offers no extra context about the action's scope or constraints, warranting a slight reduction.

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 'Dismiss browser dialog' clearly states the tool's action (dismiss) and resource (browser dialog). It is specific enough to understand the basic function, though it lacks detail on what constitutes a dialog (e.g., alert, confirm, prompt) and does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'accept_dialog', which implies confirmation rather than cancellation.

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 like 'accept_dialog'. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or when dismissal is appropriate. The agent must infer from context, which increases ambiguity.

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