eda_sys_dialog_show_select_dialog

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

It discloses that a dialog is shown and returns the selected value, and the callbackFn parameter hints at an asynchronous option. However, it does not explain behaviors like what happens on cancel, whether the dialog is modal, or how multiple selections affect the return (though multiple defaults to false). With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden but leaves key behavioral details unclear.

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 structured signature followed by a brief Chinese statement and return note. It is compact and front-loaded with the most important technical details, though the Chinese phrase could be integrated more clearly.

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?

While the signature lists parameters, it does not explain the meaning of many of them (e.g., beforeContent, afterContent, defaultOption) or edge cases (e.g., cancel behavior, multiple selection return type). With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would need to guess several behaviors, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 provides the full function signature with parameter names and types (e.g., options can be strings or objects with value/displayContent, plus title, defaultOption, callbackFn). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's generic 'args array' description. It clarifies what each parameter is and how to pass them, even if some semantics like beforeContent/afterContent are not explained.

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 explicitly states '弹出选择窗口' (pop-up selection window), and the function signature shows it takes options and returns a selected value. This clearly distinguishes it from other dialog tools like show_confirmation_message or show_input_dialog, though it could be more explicit about the 'select one from a list' behavior.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling dialog tools, such as when a selection from a list is needed vs. a simple confirmation or input. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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