eda_sys_message_box_show_information_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is marked '[已弃用]' (deprecated), which is critical behavioral information, but the description does not say what that means for the agent: whether it still works, what the replacement is, or what happens on invocation. It also does not mention whether this requires a visible window, whether it blocks execution, or what the return value is. The signature shows '-> void' which helps, but the deprecation is the standout gap.

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 short, which is good, but it is not well structured: it is a single paragraph mixing a signature, Chinese remarks, an English remark, and a deprecation tag. The '[已弃用]' marker is buried at the end rather than front-loaded. Every line earns its place, but the structure is haphazard rather than deliberately organized.

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 deprecated tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell whether the tool is still safe to use, what the deprecation means, or how this differs from the many sibling message/dialog tools. Given the low complexity of the tool, the description should at minimum provide a replacement pointer and a clear usage statement.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the two top-level parameters, but the args array is untyped ('items': {}). The description does not explain the content/title/buttonTitle semantics beyond the signature line, which is terse and in code form. The deprecation marker in the description slightly adds context, but the description mostly restates what the schema already shows, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: show an information message box with content, title, and button. The signature line makes the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools eda_sys_message_box_show_confirmation_message, eda_sys_dialog_show_information_message, or eda_sys_message_show_toast_message, which all overlap in the message-display space, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to display a text message box. The signature and remarks '显示一个文字消息提示框' provide context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which alternative to pick among the many message/dialog/toast sibling tools, and the deprecation notice is not explained.

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