answer_dialog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it discloses the window-level command mechanism, the GUID rebinder's live rebinding, commit confirmation via result_marker, and the fact that a new top-level window opens. It omits practical prerequisites (a live test client / connection, an existing capture fixture) which leaves a gap for a mutation-style operation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the body is a dense run-on of internal jargon (SecondaryFrame GUIDs, raw command bytes, GUID rebinder) that is hard to parse. The information earns its place but the structure sacrifices readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description does describe the commit-confirmation flow. But with zero annotation coverage and 0% param documentation, it should specify prerequisites and the fully-understood parameter set; it stops short of that.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lends meaning to raise_command, result_marker, and capture ('replays the genuine dialog session from capture'), but host and port are never explained and the semantics of dialog_sf/committed are only implied. It covers the key params partially rather than fully.

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 ('Answer a 1C modal dialog (ПоказатьВопрос / ПоказатьПредупреждение) natively') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the popup choice list sibling that 'reuses the form window'. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

It implicitly contrasts the real dialog with a popup choice list and notes the WARNING (ОК) path is the default while the QUESTION (Да/Нет) path uses the same mechanism. However, it never gives an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that rule or prerequisites, so selection guidance is only implied.

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