eda_sys_dialog_show_information_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it pops up a message window and shows text, but does not disclose whether the dialog is modal, whether it blocks the caller, any return behavior (void), or how it interacts with the active window. This is a significant gap for a UI interaction tool.

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 concise, combining a technical signature with brief Chinese explanations. However, the Chinese phrases '弹出消息窗口' and '显示一个文字消息窗口' are largely redundant with the signature's meaning, adding minor extra cost without significant value. Still, it is tightly packed and front-loads the most useful information (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?

The description is adequate for a simple display tool, providing the input parameters and return type (void). However, it does not clarify how the 'args' array should be structured in practice (beyond the signature), nor does it differentiate from similar message/dialog tools in the sibling list (e.g., eda_sys_message_box_show_information_message). Given no annotations or output schema, the description should have included at least a note on intended usage or caveats, which it lacks.

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 description explicitly lists the function signature 'content: string, title?: string, buttonTitle?: string', providing parameter names, types, and order. This is far more informative than the generic schema description for 'args' (a JSON array in official signature order). The windowId parameter is explained in the schema as targeting a specific EDA window. The description adds essential meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action: it shows an information message dialog via 'showInformationMessage', with Chinese text '弹出消息窗口' (pop up message window) and remarks '显示一个文字消息窗口' (show a text message window). The verb and resource are specific and match the name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like eda_sys_dialog_show_confirmation_message or eda_sys_message_box_show_information_message, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., confirmation dialog, input dialog) or any prerequisites/conditions. The function signature and Chinese descriptions only state what it does, not when or why to choose it.

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