cw_file_dialog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add meaningful context by explaining that this dialog is scriptable because it is standard MFC rather than drawn, but it does not describe return format, side effects, or how the element names should be used.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately names the subject: driving the file dialog opened by a document command. The parenthetical rationale is useful context, though the sentence is slightly discursive.

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 zero-parameter reference/help tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should make clear what the tool returns and how to use it. It says the tool covers element names and scriptability rationale, but it does not describe the shape of the returned guidance or how an agent should act on it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The empty schema is consistent with the description, and no compensating parameter explanation is needed.

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 identifies a specific resource: the file dialog opened by a document command, and states that it covers element names and scriptability rationale. However, it never states the tool's own action—whether it returns guidance, lists elements, or explains behavior—and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as cw_ui_recipe or cw_navigate.

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 phrase 'a document command opens' implies the usage context, so an agent can infer this tool is relevant when a file dialog appears. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives.

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