eda_sys_message_bus_push_public

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one useful delivery semantic: '每个消息只有一个 Puller 可以收到' (each message can be received by only one Puller). It also exposes the void return. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, persistence, whether delivery is asynchronous, or what happens if no Puller exists.

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 and mostly front-loaded: the signature is immediately useful, and the remarks line adds a valuable behavioral constraint. There is some redundancy between the code-style signature and the Chinese one-line summary, but no wasted or misleading content.

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 two-parameter push operation with no output schema, an agent can likely invoke it correctly from the signature alone. However, the description does not explain the public/private message-bus family, how a Puller is registered, or the practical consequences of pushing. It is minimally adequate but leaves important surrounding context unexplained.

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 input schema only describes args as an ordered JSON array, but the description's signature supplies the actual parameter names and types: topic: string and message: any. This is essential for correctly constructing the args array. The windowId parameter is left to the schema, but schema coverage is already high, so the description adds meaningful value without needing to duplicate everything.

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 clearly states the operation as 'sys_MessageBus.pushPublic(topic: string, message: any) -> void' and adds the Chinese gloss '公共消息总线：推消息', meaning 'public message bus: push message'. This identifies a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like eda_sys_message_bus_push or eda_sys_message_bus_publish_public, but the 'public' qualifier provides basic differentiation.

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 use this tool versus the many related message-bus siblings such as push, publish, pull, or subscribe variants. The only contextual hint is 'public' and the remark about one Puller, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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