dialog_off

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key limits (cannot cover beforeunload/opened dialogs) and the injection-timing requirement, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe what happens if the dialog mechanism isn't present or the scoping (all tabs vs current tab) behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it's dense and mixes implementation detail ('JS 层'), behavioral limits, and alternative-tool guidance in a run-on manner without clear segmentation, making it slightly harder to parse despite being short.

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?

The tool has 1 undocumented parameter, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the mechanism and limitations well but omits the meaning of the 'tab' parameter entirely and provides no return-value or idempotency information. For a fairly niche utility tool with thin structured metadata, the description is partially complete but has clear gaps around the parameter.

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% and there is 1 parameter ('tab') with no description. The description never mentions the 'tab' parameter at all — it doesn't clarify whether tab targets a specific tab or is optional (0 required params). For a tool with a single undocumented parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide necessary parameter semantics.

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 states it overrides window.alert/confirm/prompt to auto-dismiss at the JS layer. The verb '覆盖...为自动关闭' is reasonably specific, but the tool name (dialog_off) combined with no title leaves purpose somewhat clear yet not richly elaborated.

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 explicitly notes the injection must happen before the trigger ('需在触发前注入'), identifies what it cannot cover (beforeunload, already-open native dialogs), and points to an alternative tool (get_last_dialog via CDP) for more robust handling. This is genuine usage guidance.

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