eda_sys_message_bus_create_private_message_bus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the method returns void and that creation is automatically triggered by listen/send operations, making an explicit call usually redundant. It does not describe behavior when the bus already exists, but the most important behavioral caveat 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: a signature line, a one-line Chinese purpose, and one essential usage remark. It is front-loaded and contains no filler; the mild duplication between the signature and the Chinese purpose is negligible.

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 void method with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the key system behavior (automatic creation during listen/send). It does not elaborate on when explicit creation might be needed or the bus lifecycle, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the prominent 'generally no need' caveat.

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 signature `createPrivateMessageBus()` clearly shows the method takes no parameters, which prevents the agent from supplying arguments through the generic `args` array. The input schema only gives generic wrapper descriptions, so the empty-paren signature in the description adds meaningful semantic 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 the operation explicitly: `sys_MessageBus.createPrivateMessageBus() -> void` and '创建私有消息总线' (create private message bus). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling publish/subscribe/remove message-bus operations, though it does not name an alternative tool.

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 remark directly tells the agent when not to call this tool: it is generally unnecessary because private message buses are automatically created during listening or sending. It does not specify a scenario where an explicit call is required, so it falls just short of fully explicit when/alternative guidance.

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