session_dialog

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: dialogs never block the page, each is auto-answered by default and logged into session_console at level 'dialog'. It explains the effects of accept (confirm() returns true, prompt() returns prompt_text) and dismiss (restores default), including the note that alert is always logged and never blocking. Since annotations provide no behavioral hints, the description carries the full burden and handles it well.

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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and then efficiently explaining the non-blocking behavior and action effects in the following sentences. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main actions, their effects, the non-blocking nature, and logging behavior. It even describes the return structure for 'list' despite the lack of an output schema. While it doesn't mention error conditions or persistence across sessions, these are minor for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema: it specifies the output structure for 'list' ({policy, prompt_text, dialogs}) and clarifies that prompt_text falls back to the call's default argument when omitted, which the schema only implies. This extra semantic detail improves parameter understanding.

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 ('inspect or flip') with a clear resource ('session's dialog policy') for window.alert/confirm/prompt. It distinguishes itself from sibling session_* tools by focusing on dialog policy control, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

Implicitly conveys when to use the tool: whenever you need to inspect or change how dialogs are auto-answered. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but given the tool's unique scope, no exclusions are necessary. The action semantics (list/accept/dismiss) guide the agent on correct usage.

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