chrome_dialog

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotence. The description adds genuine context: dialogs are never auto-accepted, and the required read-then-answer sequence. It doesn't detail consequences of accept vs dismiss, which would push it higher.

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?

Two tight sentences with the constraint ('never accepted automatically') front-loaded, followed by the procedure. Zero wasted text.

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 dialog handler with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and sequence. It omits what 'status' returns for a non-blocking tab, a minor gap given the small tool surface.

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 coverage is 33%; tabId is documented in the schema itself, and the enum action values are self-explanatory. The description usefully clarifies that promptText applies to prompt() dialogs, but adds nothing for the status vs accept vs dismiss distinction beyond the schema enum.

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 gives a specific verb ('inspect or answer') and resource ('JavaScript dialog'), and enumerates the dialog types (alert/confirm/prompt/beforeunload). No sibling tool handles dialogs, so the agent can identify it unambiguously.

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?

It supplies clear context ('that is blocking a tab') and a workflow ('read the message, then accept or dismiss'). It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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