Display a short toast message during Android automation workflows, supporting ${var} interpolation and returning a variable snapshot JSON for verification.
弹出一条短提示。字符串参数支持 ${var} 插值；结果以变量快照 JSON 返回。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | 提示文字，支持 ${var} | |
| require | No | 执行后要求为 true 的变量名（如 click_success），不满足按出错处理 | |
| on_error | No | 节点出错时：skip=跳过继续（默认），stop=停止整个工作流 | |
| node_timeout_ms | No | 单节点超时毫秒，0=不限；默认 30 分钟 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema's headline: that ${var} interpolation applies to string parameters and that the result is returned as a variable-snapshot JSON. It does not say whether the toast blocks execution, how long it is visible, or what the snapshot contains, so transparency is partial.
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?
Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two behavioral notes. No filler, though the return-value clause could be tightened and the interpolation note is partly redundant with the schema.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action plus the two most agent-relevant traits (interpolation and return format). The remaining parameter semantics are fully carried by the 100%-covered schema, so nothing critical 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 all four parameters (message, require, on_error, node_timeout_ms) are already documented in the schema. The description's note about ${var} interpolation largely repeats what the message parameter's own description says, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a specific verb and resource in Chinese ('弹出一条短提示' – show a short toast), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as ACTION_SEND_NOTIFICATION or ACTION_DYNAMIC_ISLAND, so an agent must infer that this is the lightweight on-screen variant.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives named. Usage is only implied by the word '短提示' (short prompt), leaving an agent to guess this is for brief user-facing feedback rather than persistent notifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.