browser_handle_dialog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose what happens when a dialog is accepted vs. dismissed, whether promptText is required, whether the dialog blocks, or any side effects. This is a critical omission for a mutating interaction.

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?

While brief, the description is severely under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structural elements that aid understanding, such as scenario examples or a clear statement of functionality. It is a fragment that does not earn its place.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain dialog types, the meaning of accept, the role of promptText, or the expected behavior, making it impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (accept, sessionId, promptText). The description adds no additional meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 near-restatement of the tool name, offering only a generic verb and resource. It does not specify what kind of dialog (alert, confirm, prompt) or what 'handle' entails (accept/dismiss), and it fails to distinguish this from sibling browser tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what triggers a dialog, or how it relates to alternative browser actions. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent is left without contextual direction.

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