People sometimes colloquially refer to dogs as friendly. Is that an imprecise use of language? Does being friendly not require the subject that quality is ascribed to to possess a model of at least one other subject’s internal state and to consciously take actions to positively affect that state? I think a dog can be pleasant, which does not require any conscious effort on the dog’s part, but friendly?
No, there’s nothing at all wrong with talking about friendly dogs. You’re over-thinking this.
The OED has citations dating back to the 1600s of friendly shade and friendly colours, and going back to Chaucer in the 1300s we see friendly aspects of planets back in the 1300s.
Even places can be friendly, but since a dog is a creature, you don’t even have to go that far. It falls under the sense of being on good, amicable, or affectionate terms.