Handle Browser Dialog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the handler auto-accepts/auto-dismisses the NEXT dialog (one-shot semantics), that promptText is applied before accepting, and that an already-visible dialog is handled immediately. It omits edge behavior such as timeouts or what happens if no dialog appears, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage timing, with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 mutating browser-interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and the prompt-text special case well. It could go slightly further on failure/timeout behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents action, mode, sessionId, and promptText. The description adds only a light reinforcement of promptText's condition ('if the dialog is a prompt()'), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pairing ('Handle JavaScript alert(), confirm(), and prompt() dialogs'), covering the full scope of dialog types and clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type.

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 explicitly states when to call it ('BEFORE triggering an action that shows a dialog'), gives a concrete example (clicking a delete button that shows a confirm), and explains the alternative case (calling when a dialog is already showing). This is the kind of when/when-not guidance that lets an agent route correctly.

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