eda_sys_message_bus_rpc_service_public

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool registers an RPC service, but it does not explain what the callback receives, what it should return, what happens on duplicate topics, or how the registered service is used by RPC callers. The signature hints at Promise support, but the semantics remain undocumented.

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 and front-loaded with the signature, followed by a one-line purpose. Every element earns its place and there is no padding. It would benefit from a brief behavioral note, but as written it is clean and readable.

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 callback-registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently implement the callback function because the RPC request/response flow is not explained. The description should clarify how args reach the callback, what the callback should return, and whether the service persists across windows or sessions.

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 only describes 'args' as a JSON array in official signature order, so the description's signature line adds real meaning by naming topic and callbackFn and giving their types. However, it does not explain the intended callback contract, such as what arguments are passed or how a returned value/Promise is used. This is adequate but not fully compensated.

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 a clear verb and resource: it registers an RPC service on the public message bus. The Chinese summary ('公共消息总线：注册 RPC 服务') reinforces the purpose. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling eda_sys_message_bus_rpc_service, though the word 'public' helps differentiate.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as eda_sys_message_bus_rpc_service, eda_sys_message_bus_subscribe_public, or eda_sys_message_bus_rpc_call_public. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing hints, so an agent must infer usage 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.