Check which social policies are adopted or adoptable now, which branches are unlocked, and culture costs before choosing or unlocking a policy branch.
Social policies: what is adopted, what can be adopted right now (enum + name; the effect text is in reference("policies")), which branches are unlocked / unlockable, culture vs next cost. Use before choose_policy / unlock_policy_branch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully describes the returned content (which branches are unlocked/unlockable, culture vs next cost) and implies a read-only query via "available," but never states read-only safety, side effects, or that effects live in a separate reference tool as the authoritative source. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.
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?
Two dense but front-loaded sentences: domain, then contents, then routing. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded. The nested parenthetical about the reference lookup makes it marginally heavier than ideal.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers what is returned and where effect details live, which is what an agent needs to act. The main residual gap is behavioral safety, which the missing annotations leave unaddressed.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful shape information about the response payload (enum + name for adoptable policies, effect text deferred to reference("policies")) that an agent cannot get from the empty schema.
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?
States a specific resource (social policies) and enumerates exactly what the call surfaces: adopted policies, currently adoptable policies, branch unlock status, and culture cost to next. It also points to reference("policies") for effect text, so an agent knows what this returns without confusing it with the effect-lookup tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other available_* list tools, keeping it a touch below top marks.
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?
"Use before choose_policy / unlock_policy_branch" gives an explicit precondition and names the two downstream tools it feeds. That is clear context for invocation. It does not state when-not to use it or any exclusivity conditions, so it falls short of the 5-level routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.