dialog

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool can inspect or resolve dialogs, that dialogs 'block' a tab, and that acceptance/dismissal/response should only occur with task intent. This highlights the safety implications of the mutating actions, though it does not detail what status returns or what happens if no dialog is present.

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 two sentences, immediately front-loaded with the core functionality, and a follow-up safety guideline. There is no wasted wording, and every clause contributes either to purpose or proper use.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, conditional text, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential use cases and safety rules. It could mention edge cases like absent dialogs or the standalone behavior of accept/dismiss, but it is sufficiently complete for an experienced agent to operate correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by framing the action parameter: 'status' for inspection, and the other actions as explicit resolution steps requiring intent. This clarifies the enum values beyond their schema descriptions, even though the text parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb and resource: 'Inspect or explicitly resolve the JavaScript dialog blocking one owned tab.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on JavaScript dialogs and adds scoping ('one owned tab') that clarifies its domain.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use status when the dialog state is unknown' and 'Never accept, dismiss, or respond without intent from the current task.' This gives clear direction on when to use the status action vs. mutating actions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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