eda_sys_toast_message_show_message

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the function returns void and is deprecated. However, it does not describe any side effects, display behavior, dismissal mechanics, or UI context requirements beyond the raw signature.

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 contains no filler: the signature, the plain-language purpose, and the deprecation flag all earn their place. It would be slightly better if the plain-language purpose led the description instead of following the signature.

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 tool with a six-parameter API, the description supplies only the raw signature and deprecation note. Missing enum values, timer units, callback semantics, and any replacement tool leave an agent unable to call it with full confidence, despite the schema's high-level coverage.

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 describes `args` as an opaque JSON array in official signature order plus `windowId`, so the signature in the description adds genuine meaning: parameter names, types, optionality, and order. It still omits allowed values for ESYS_ToastMessageType/ESYS_BottomPanelTab and the expected format for buttonCallbackFn.

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 operation as '显示吐司消息' (show a toast message) and includes the official API signature, so an agent can identify the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling toast/dialog tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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. The '[已弃用]' deprecation marker hints that it should probably be avoided, but it names no replacement or selection criteria, and sibling tools like eda_sys_message_show_toast_message could serve a similar role.

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