eda_sys_timer_set_timeout_timer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a duplicate ID clears the previously set timer and that the return value indicates whether setting succeeded. It does not discuss lifecycle details such as timeout units or cancellation, but the most important non-obvious side effect is covered.

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 and well-structured: signature first, then a one-line Chinese summary, then remarks and return semantics. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 covers the basic call shape, duplicate-ID behavior, and return value, which is good for a simple timer tool. However, it omits the timeout unit, does not explain how a function-valued `callFn` is passed through the JSON `args` array, and does not reference `eda_sys_timer_clear_timeout_timer` for cancellation. These gaps make it less than fully actionable in an MCP context.

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 input schema only provides a generic `args` array, but the description supplies the actual parameter order and types: `id: string, timeout: number, callFn: (...args: any) => void, ...args: any`. This is meaningful value beyond the schema. It does not explain timeout units or how to represent the `callFn` function inside a JSON args array, which is a notable gap.

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 sets a single-shot timer (`设置单次定时器`) and provides the full function signature `sys_Timer.setTimeoutTimer(id: string, timeout: number, callFn: ...) -> boolean`. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the interval-timer sibling, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from `eda_sys_timer_set_interval_timer`.

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 phrase `单次定时器` implies this tool is for one-time delayed execution, which gives the agent a contextual signal about when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the interval-timer/clear-timer alternatives, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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