eda_sys_dialog_show_input_dialog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return value ('用户输入的值，始终为 string 类型，除非用户点击了 取消 按钮') but the cancel behavior is ambiguous: it does not say whether the callback still fires, what value is passed on cancel, or whether the function itself (which returns void) provides any fallback. It also omits modality and whether the dialog is blocking. The typo 'mouth' for 'month' further muddles the type list.

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 a single block containing the signature, a brief Chinese purpose sentence, and a return note. It is concise with no redundant filler, though the structure is slightly odd (signature first, then purpose). Every part contributes useful information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior. It does note the return type and special cancel case, but the ambiguity around cancellation and the callback mechanism leaves the agent unclear about how to retrieve the result. The many optional parameters are listed but not exemplified, and the typo undermines trust.

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 schema only exposes a generic args array, so the signature in the description is crucial for understanding parameter order, types, and optionality. The description adds meaning by listing all parameters with their types and defaults, though it does not explain semantics like 'beforeContent' vs 'afterContent' beyond what their names imply.

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 pops up an input window ('弹出输入窗口'), with a verb and resource that distinguish it from sibling message boxes and select dialogs. The function signature reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 context is clear—this is for showing a free-form input dialog—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling dialogs like show_select_dialog or show_confirmation_message. The use case is implied by the name and description rather than stated.

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