browser_handle_dialog

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain that handling a dialog accepts or dismisses it, nor does it describe any side effects. The description adds no value beyond the annotations.

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 short at 4 words, but under-specification harms clarity. It is not appropriately sized; lacks essential detail for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain the dialog lifecycle, when to use this tool, or the behavior of accept/promptText. The agent cannot adequately understand the tool's purpose and constraints.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters accept (required boolean) and promptText (optional string) are well-documented in schema. Description adds no extra meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description is 'Handle a dialog', which is a verb+resource but vague. It does not specify what 'handle' means (e.g., accept/reject) or differentiate from sibling tools. It essentially restates the title, making it borderline tautological.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that dialogs appear from browser prompts (alert, confirm, prompt) or that this tool should be used after a dialog is triggered. Missing context for appropriate use.

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