sleeper_dialog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a hook is installed and dialogs are auto accepted/dismissed, but omits whether the hook persists, how it interacts with browser/profile state, whether it can override user intent, and whether it requires specific permissions.

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 phrase with no filler and is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the slash construction 'accept/dismiss' is slightly ambiguous and not expanded for clarity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain persistence, scope, interaction with the profile, side effects of auto-accepting dialogs, or how to reverse the hook, leaving important context missing.

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?

There is one optional parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the profile parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or constraints, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 states an action and object: 'Install auto accept/dismiss dialog hook.' However, 'hook' and 'auto accept/dismiss' are ambiguous, and it does not distinguish this tool from the related sleeper_wait_dialog sibling. An agent can infer it installs automatic dialog handling, but the exact effect is not fully clear.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent whether to use this instead of sleeper_wait_dialog or when a dialog hook is appropriate. Only a vague implied context is present.

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