set_file_dialog_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary effect and does not explain whether the preloaded result is consumed once, persists until cleared, applies per session, or overrides user interaction. For a side-effecting tool, these are material gaps.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is economically written, though it sacrifices important semantic detail that is captured in the other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations, the absence of an output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. Missing context includes parameter formats, consumption/persistence semantics, and the relationship to clear_file_dialog_result. A minimum-viable definition would need to address at least one of these.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not specify the format of paths (single path, multiple paths, delimiters) or the role of session_id. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from the information provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preload') and a clear target ('the result for the next 1C file selection dialog'), making the core action understandable. It is distinguishable from the sibling clear_file_dialog_result by the set/clear contrast, though it does not explicitly name that sibling. The term 'result' is slightly vague, but the purpose is still largely unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Next ... dialog' weakly implies it should be called before a file-selection dialog appears, but the agent is not told when not to use it or how it relates to clear_file_dialog_result. This leaves routing and timing to inference.

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