fiji_ui_dialog_respond

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: it refuses ambiguous or missing dialogs and never picks a button implicitly, so the agent knows failure is preferred over guessing. It does not say what happens after the click (dialog close, downstream effects), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the constraints; no wasted prose. A missing period after 'implicitly' slightly blurs the third sentence into the second, but the structure remains readable.

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 two-parameter action with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, failure modes, and the user-intent precondition. It omits the post-click consequence (whether the dialog closes or the pipeline resumes), which is the only notable missing piece.

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 both parameters are already documented and the schema even points to fiji_ui_dialogs_read as the source of dialog_title. The description adds only the qualifiers 'exact' and 'enabled' for button_text, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Click an exact enabled button in one visible dialog.' The specificity of 'exact enabled button' and the single-dialog scope distinguishes it from siblings like fiji_ui_dialogs_read and fiji_ui_dialog_close, though those alternatives are not named.

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?

'Only for dialogs the user asked you to answer' gives a clear gating condition, and 'rejects missing or ambiguous dialogs' tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for discovery (fiji_ui_dialogs_read appears only in the schema), so it is context-clear but not fully routing.

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