eda_sys_message_bus_publish_public

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 only states the broadcast action and the signature. It doesn't disclose side effects, whether the message is delivered asynchronously, error handling, or any prerequisites like having a subscriber. This is minimal for a publish operation.

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 very short, with the signature front-loaded and the purpose in Chinese. It's not verbose and every line earns its place, but it could be more structured (e.g., separate sections for usage and notes).

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?

Given the many sibling message bus tools, this description doesn't clarify when to use publishPublic vs publish or pushPublic. It also omits guidance on constructing the args array properly (beyond the schema) and doesn't mention the windowId parameter or any cross-window behavior. The void return and potential error conditions are unaddressed. For a simple function it's minimal but not sufficient for an agent to use it confidently.

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 schema already describes both parameters (args array and windowId) with high coverage. The description adds the function signature (topic: string, message: any) and return type void, which provides some type information. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of topic or message, or how to construct the args array for this specific function, though the schema's '按官方签名顺序排列' covers ordering.

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 tool publishes a message to the public message bus and broadcasts to all subscribers, which is a clear verb+resource. It names the specific API method and its signature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eda_sys_message_bus_publish, though the word 'public' implies a distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention private vs public buses, or when to choose publish over push/pull. The Chinese remark only explains the broadcast behavior, not usage context.

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