get_last_dialog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so comprehensively. It discloses the interception mechanism (Page.javascriptDialogOpening), the handling behavior (beforeunload allows, alert/confirm/prompt cancels), the purpose (prevent JS thread freeze), the return structure, and the side effect of clearing after reading. It also notes the limitation that it cannot answer on behalf of the dialog.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary line, then adds necessary detail about mechanism, return value, and caveats. It is appropriately sized—every sentence contributes meaningful information without unnecessary fluff. The structure is dense but readable, ideal for AI consumption.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return value structure (dialog = {kind, message, url, defaultPrompt} or None). It also covers the behavioral context of auto-handling and the side effect of clearing after reading. The description is complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, behavior, and limitations.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add additional parameter information. Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4, and this 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 explicitly states '取最近一次被扩展自动处置的原生对话框，读后清' (get the most recent native dialog auto-handled by the extension, clear after reading), which clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (last dialog), and unique side effect (clearing after read). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on post-hoc observation rather than dialog interaction.

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 provides clear usage context, stating '仅事后观测，不能代答' (only post-hoc observation, cannot answer on behalf), which is an explicit exclusion. It also explains the auto-handling behavior (beforeunload allows, alert/confirm/prompt cancels) and that dialogs requiring confirm()===true will be unconditionally canceled. While no alternative tool is named, the when-not-to-use is explicit.

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