eda_sys_message_bus_publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: the publish broadcasts to every subscriber, and the return type is void. However, it says nothing about message persistence, delivery guarantees, or behavior when no subscribers exist — meaningful gaps for a messaging tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 statement, and a short remark. It is front-loaded with the signature and communicates the core purpose efficiently without waste.

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 same-signature publish tool with void return and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: both parameters and the broadcast effect. But with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent has a thin understanding of the broader private message-bus system (how to create the bus, how subscribers attach, visibility scope), which matters when many bus siblings exist.

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 code signature 'publish(topic: string, message: any)' adds semantic depth beyond the schema's opaque 'args' array, revealing that the first positional argument is a string topic and the second is an arbitrary message value. This complements the schema's '按官方签名顺序排列' phrasing and helps an agent construct the array correctly.

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 clear verb+resource: 发布消息 (publish message) on the 私有消息总线 (private message bus), and the remarks clarify the broadcast behavior (broadcast to every Subscriber). It implicitly distinguishes from the public-bus sibling via 私有/private, though it doesn't name eda_sys_message_bus_publish_public explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like eda_sys_message_bus_publish_public, eda_sys_message_bus_push, and eda_sys_message_bus_pull, the description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, no visibility-scope explanation, and no noted difference between publishing on a private vs public bus.

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