bridge_to_political

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are 'probable' tendencies with caveats about timescale and IS dependence, indicating limitations. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but for an analytical inference tool this is implied. The added caveat about timescale and IS dependence is valuable context.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a relevant technical note. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, model basis, and limitations. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the mention of 'DPM tendencies' is sufficient for an inference tool. It could be more complete by adding a note about expected output format or typical use cases, but it is not severely lacking.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking the bridge to specific parameters (FEAR to RWA, CARE breadth to SDO) and explicitly referencing 'timescale' as a contextual variable. This enriches the bare schema enums with theoretical context.

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 a specific action ('assess probable political orientation tendencies') and a distinct resource/context (Dual Process Model bridge from emotional systems). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on political orientation via DPM, a unique angle not present in get_system_info, analyze_behavior, etc.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (when active primary emotional systems are known and political orientation tendencies are desired). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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