handle_dialog

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

The description lacks detail on behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., dialog closing) or whether the tool waits for the dialog. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, placing the burden on the description, which fails to add meaningful context.

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 with no wasted words. It could be slightly expanded to include usage tips, but it remains concise and to the point.

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 tool with only two parameters and a clear purpose, the description is complete enough. It specifies the triggering condition and action, which suffices for most use cases.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meriting a baseline score of 3.

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 browser dialogs, specifying the verb 'handle' and resource 'dialog'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'wait_for' or 'click' that might interact with dialogs indirectly.

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 precondition ('If a browser dialog was opened') but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. Usage context is implied but not thorough.

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