Show a confirmation dialog with OK and Cancel buttons to verify user intent before executing critical actions.
sys_Dialog.showConfirmationMessage(content: string, title?: string, mainButtonTitle?: string, buttonTitle?: string, callbackFn?: (mainButtonClicked: boolean) => void) -> void 弹出确认窗口 remarks: 显示一个拥有确认和取消按钮的窗口
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions displaying a confirmation window but does not disclose whether the call is blocking, how the callback is handled, or any side effects. The signature hints at behavior but lacks detail.
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 brief and front-loads the signature, followed by a minimal Chinese remark. It is efficient, though the remark is somewhat redundant with the signature.
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 simple confirmation dialog, the description covers the core parameters via the signature PowerShell. The schema defines windowId. However, details like callback timing or return behavior are not explained, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 input schema only defines an 'args' array, opaque without context. The description provides the full function signature with parameter names and types, which is essential for constructing the args array correctly. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 shows a confirmation window with confirm and cancel buttons, and includes the function signature. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling dialog tools like show_information_message or show_input_dialog.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or contextual advice are provided beyond the basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.