dialog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavioral context — dialogs are "captured, non-blocking" and the keystroke parameter references "OS-level mode (old dismiss_dialog)" — but it stays silent on behavior when no dialog is pending, multi-dialog ordering, and side effects, and the text is truncated.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, which is efficient. However, it trails off mid-thought with "+ index…," a structural defect indicating an unfinished specification, and the single run-on sentence jumps between modes without separating concerns.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only one schema-described parameter, the description is inadequate. It omits value's role in prompt dialogs, key's purpose, index semantics, no-dialog behavior, and any return format, leaving an agent to guess for common cases.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies action (accept/dismiss, which duplicates the schema enum) and gestures at index before truncating. The value parameter (needed for prompt-dialog text input), key, and index semantics are left unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Resolve dialogs") and narrows the scope to JS dialogs (alert/confirm/prompt) with the qualifier "captured, non-blocking," which distinguishes it from native browser dialogs and from the sibling input tools (click, type_text, press_key). It loses the fifth point because the trailing "+ index…" truncation makes the statement incomplete.

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 guidance on when to invoke this tool versus its 24 siblings. The description never states the trigger condition (e.g., "when a dialog is pending") nor excludes alternatives like press_key or type_text for handling dialog content. The intended usage is only implied by the word "dialogs."

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