eda_sys_message_box_show_confirmation_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the dialog has confirm and cancel buttons but does not explain whether it is modal, whether it blocks execution, or how the callbackFn parameter is invoked. The deprecation note is useful but insufficient.

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, comprising a signature and a brief remark. It is structured with the core purpose stated first. There is no wasted text, though the deprecation marker is embedded without additional explanation.

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 thin for a tool with multiple parameters and a callback. It lacks information about return behavior, asynchronous handling, and how windowId interacts with the dialog. It also fails to mention the existence of the sibling dialog tool, which could be a better choice given deprecation.

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 includes the full function signature with parameter names and types (content, title, mainButtonTitle, buttonTitle, callbackFn). This is valuable because the input schema only provides a generic 'args' array without individual parameter details. The signature helps an agent understand the order and nature of arguments, though it does not explain each parameter's purpose.

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 that this tool displays a confirmation dialog with confirm and cancel buttons ('显示一个拥有确认和取消按钮的确认框'). The verb 'show' and resource 'confirmation message' are specific enough. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool eda_sys_dialog_show_confirmation_message, which likely serves the same purpose.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the similar eda_sys_dialog_show_confirmation_message. The deprecation tag '[已弃用]' implies it should be avoided, but no alternative is suggested. The description provides no context for choosing this tool over others.

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