eda_sys_message_bus_rpc_call

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a Promise return but says nothing about side effects, error behavior, timeout semantics, unknown topics, or whether the call blocks. The trailing line 'returns: RPC 服务返回' is a tautology and adds no behavioral insight.

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 definition is compact, but the machine-oriented signature leads ahead of the human-readable purpose, and the 'returns' line partly duplicates what the signature already communicates. It's short without being optimally front-loaded for an agent's comprehension.

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 generic RPC-call tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is incomplete. It doesn't enumerate available topics, describe the shape of the resolved value, or specify error and timeout behavior — all of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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. The signature does add value by naming the elements inside the args array (topic, message, timeout) and their order, which an agent needs to build the array correctly. However, it doesn't explain what a valid topic is, the message format, or timeout units, keeping it at baseline.

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 provides the concrete signature sys_MessageBus.rpcCall(topic, message, timeout) and states the operation: 调用 RPC 服务 (call RPC service) on a private message bus. The 私有/private qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling eda_sys_message_bus_rpc_call_public. It names a specific verb and resource, though the prose is terse and leans heavily on the signature.

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 versus the many message-bus siblings (rpc_call_public, publish, push, pull, subscribe, pull_async). There are no preconditions, exclusions, or context explaining why an agent should choose an RPC call over other bus operations, so the agent must infer from the name alone.

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