open_input_interact_dialog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning potential side effects like foreground focus, modal behavior, or error conditions if the input does not exist. This is a notable gap for a UI-interaction tool.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It directly communicates the tool's purpose without wasting words, earning the highest score.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It could mention prerequisites like the input existing, but for a basic UI action, the lack of such detail is acceptable. The missing behavioral aspects are already penalized under transparency.

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 schema has a single parameter 'input_name' with no description, and the tool description also does not explicitly explain it. However, the param name is self-explanatory, and the description references 'an input,' which matches the parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description offers no additional semantic value, but the simplicity of the parameter keeps it at baseline.

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 action: 'Open an input's Interact dialog in the OBS UI.' It specifies the verb (open), the resource (input's Interact dialog), and the context (OBS UI). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling dialog-opening tools like open_input_properties_dialog and open_input_filters_dialog.

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 implies usage context by naming the specific dialog type. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative dialog-opening tools, so an agent might not know when to choose Interact over Properties or Filters. Still, the context is clear enough for a single-purpose UI action.

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