eda_sys_message_bus_pull_async_public

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only one message can be pulled per call and that it is awaitable (Promise-based). However, it does not explain behavior when the queue is empty, potential blocking semantics, or error conditions, leaving some key aspects unspecified.

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 concise, with the signature front-loaded and brief remarks and returns sections. It contains no unnecessary fluffhol. The mixed Chinese/English format is somewhat messy but does not harm clarity.

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 message-pull tool with no output schema Citation needed, the description provides the return value ('拉取到的消息') and the await behavior. However, it lacks details like timeout behavior, return type structure, and error handling, which an agent may need to invoke it correctly in edge cases. Overall, it is acceptable for a basic operation but not comprehensive.

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 the generic 'args' array and 'windowId' with reasonable coverage. The description adds the signature 'topic: string' for the first parameter, giving the parameter a name and type, but does not explain what topics are valid or how the topic argument is passed in the args array. This adds some value beyond the schema but leaves the exact mapping ambiguous.

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 explicitly names the operation ('pullAsyncPublic'), states it is the 'Promise version' of pulling messages from the public message bus, and includes the function signature. This distinguishes it from synchronous/private variants among the many message bus siblings. However, it does not fully describe the action in plain terms beyond the label.

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 on when to use this tool instead of related tools like eda_sys_message_bus_pull_async or eda_sys_message_bus_pull_public. The remarks only describe how to use it (await, one message at a time) but not when it is the appropriate choice. Alternatives are not mentioned.

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