eda_sys_message_bus_pull_public

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful constraint (remarks: 每次只能拉一个消息 — only one message per call) and the return type ISYS_MessageBusTask. But it does not state whether the call is blocking, whether the message is consumed on pull, what happens when the bus is empty, or how the returned task is used — material gaps given the existence of a near-sibling pull_async_public.

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?

Four compact labeled lines — signature, purpose, remark, returns — with no filler, and the behavioral remark is placed early. The mixed Chinese/English is slightly noisy but the structure is efficient and every line earns its place.

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?

The tool sits among roughly 17 message-bus siblings with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description never clarifies the sync-vs-async distinction, consumption semantics, or what ISYS_MessageBusTask represents. An agent could plausibly confuse this with eda_sys_message_bus_pull_async_public or eda_sys_message_bus_pull, so the description is not complete enough for confident selection.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's signature line adds real value by fixing the positional order and types ('topic: string, callbackFn: (message: any) => void'), which is exactly what an agent needs to build the ordered args array. It does not explain topic format or callback lifecycle, so it stops short of a 5.

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 signature line 'sys_MessageBus.pullPublic(topic: string, callbackFn: ...)' and the Chinese summary '公共消息总线：拉消息' (public message bus: pull message) state a specific verb and resource. However, among the large cluster of message-bus siblings (pull, pull_async, pull_async_public, subscribe_public), it never distinguishes itself from eda_sys_message_bus_pull or eda_sys_message_bus_pull_async_public.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over its alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the sync/async or private/public decision points. The only usage hint is the name and the one-line purpose, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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