ui_file_dialog

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

The description details the action (enters path, clicks accept) and the multi-strategy fallback for different dialog variants. Since annotations only provide openWorldHint=false (no readOnlyHint/destructiveHint), the description fully discloses the mutating UI 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?

The description is brief (three short sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and a simple UI interaction, the description covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral fallback. It lacks explicit error handling or success/failure conditions, but is otherwise complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: example path format, explanation of accept_button default and usage ('Open' vs 'Save'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it completes a standard Windows Open/Save file dialog in a single call by entering the file path and clicking the accept button. This distinguishes it from sibling UI tools that require multiple steps, like ui_click or ui_send_keys.

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 indicates it is designed for standard Win32 file dialogs and mentions a default button value of 'Open' with 'Save' for save dialogs. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude alternative approaches or non-standard dialog variants.

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