browser_handle_dialog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that dialogs block page interaction, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool (handling dialogs implies interaction).

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place without waste.

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 complexity (handling interactive dialogs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on return values, error cases, or prerequisites. It covers the blocking behavior but misses other contextual aspects needed for full understanding.

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 (action and promptText) with descriptions and enum values. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining when promptText is required or how actions map to dialog types.

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 specific action ('Handle JavaScript dialogs') and the resources involved ('alert, confirm, prompt'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type. It explicitly mentions the types of dialogs handled, which is more specific than just the tool name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Dialogs block page interaction until handled'), indicating it's necessary when a dialog appears. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as for non-dialog interactions.

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