browser_handle_dialog

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

The description adds no details beyond annotations. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not clarify that accepting a dialog may submit a form or proceed with an action, or that dismissing (accept: false) cancels it. No behavioral context for promptText usage.

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?

Extremely concise (4 words) but under-specified. The description fails to include essential information that would fit in one or two sentences, making it incomplete rather than efficiently concise.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description should at least state that it handles browser modal dialogs (alert, confirm, prompt) and that promptText is only required for prompt dialogs. It lacks these contextual details, leaving the agent without clear usage guidance.

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 explains both parameters (accept and promptText). The description adds no additional meaning, aligning with the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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 'Handle a dialog' is a tautology of the tool name and resource. It lacks specificity about what handling entails (accepting, dismissing) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_fill_form.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., waiting for a dialog, using browser_evaluate to check for dialogs). There are no exclusions or contextual hints about prerequisites like dialog existence.

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