eda_sys_message_bus_subscribe_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 persistence and a returned ISYS_MessageBusTask, but does not explain what 'public' means, whether/how to unsubscribe, callback invocation semantics, or side effects of subscribing. Critical behavioral context for a subscription tool is missing.

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 front-loads the essential signature before the Chinese summary, remarks, and returns. It is a bit fragmented by labels, but every line carries useful information and there is no filler.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description is incomplete for reliable use: it does not explain how to construct the args array from the signature, how to handle the returned task, how to unsubscribe, or what distinguishes public subscriptions. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly among its many siblings.

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 provides a generic args array and windowId, but the description adds the real parameter signature: `topic: string` and `callbackFn: (message: any) => void`. This compensates for the opaque schema and gives the agent meaningful guidance on what to place in the args array.

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 '公共消息总线：订阅消息' (public message bus: subscribe to messages) and gives the exact signature `subscribePublic(topic: string, callbackFn: ...)`. The remark '持久性订阅消息' (persistent subscription) distinguishes it from one-shot variants like subscribe_once_public. Verb, resource, and scope are all explicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many message-bus siblings (subscribe, subscribe_once, publish_public, rpc_call_public, etc.). There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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