eda_sys_message_show_toast_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 does reveal that the function returns void, but it does not describe where the toast appears, whether it is transient, whether it requires a specific window, or what happens with optional callback parameters. This is minimal beyond the stated purpose.

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 compact: a single signature line plus a short Chinese purpose phrase. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though it is arguably too terse to serve as full documentation.

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 simple toast-display tool, the signature plus '显示吐司消息' provides a minimally viable invocation path: supply a message string and optionally the listed parameters. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of enum-like types or sibling alternatives, an agent may still mis-select or mis-configure the call.

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%, but the schema only describes 'args' as a positional JSON array and 'windowId' generically. The description adds the official signature with parameter names, types, and order, which is useful; however, it does not explain the meaning or allowed values of esoteric types like ESYS_ToastMessageType or ESYS_BottomPanelTab.

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: 'sys_Message.showToastMessage...' and '显示吐司消息' clearly indicates displaying a toast message. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling eda_sys_toast_message_show_message, so it stops short of full 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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sys_dialog_show_confirmation_message, eda_sys_message_show_follow_mouse_tip, or the near-duplicate eda_sys_toast_message_show_message. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the phrase '显示吐司消息'.

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