读取并关闭阻塞 Keil 的模态对话框

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

Even with annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it extracts dialog text, auto-selects buttons by semantic order, falls back to WM_CLOSE, and returns button_not_found rather than silently clicking a different button. It also warns that dismissing the dialog does not fix the underlying problem, which is important context.

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 dense but efficiently structured: the core behavior is front-loaded, parameters are explained inline, the return shape is included, and the warnings are compact. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the triggering condition, parameter semantics, return fields, fallback behavior, and operational caveats. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly in the blocking-dialog scenario.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: button supports partial matching and auto-selection, title filters when multiple dialogs exist, and index selects which dialog to target. Every parameter is explained with behavior beyond its bare name and default value.

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 action: enumerate UV4 modal dialogs, read their Static text and Button labels, and click a button to dismiss the blocking dialog. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like keil_command or restart_keil by targeting the modal-blocking scenario specifically.

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 is explicit about when to use it: when a command does not return and keil_health reports modal_blocked_suspected=true. It also prescribes a workflow—read dialog.message first, choose a button, dismiss, then retry the original command—and explains the fallback behavior when no button matches.

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