browser_dialog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool accepts or dismisses dialogs and notes prompt text is stored privately, which hints at immutability, but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to the page after dismissal, or if the operation is destructive). Some behavioral context is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 concise at one sentence with two clear actions. It is front-loaded with purpose, and every part adds information, though the 'private slot' phrase could be more straightforward.

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?

The description provides a basic understanding for a modal dialog tool, but lacks completeness for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema. It doesn't explain what 'accept' boolean does (true=accept, false=dismiss), when 'prompt_text' is needed, or the 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 3 parameters. It mentions 'accept' and 'prompt text' implicitly through context, but doesn't explain the role of 'collaboration_id' or when to provide 'prompt_text'. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema shows (e.g., boolean accept, string prompt_text).

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's purpose with specific verbs ('accept or dismiss') and resource ('browser modal dialog'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on dialog handling, which is unique among the listed tools. The mention of 'prompt text stays in a private slot' adds specificity but could be clearer.

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 implies the tool is for browser modal dialogs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of checking for a dialog first or handling timeouts). No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation is stated.

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