choose_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real gating condition (the branch must already be unlocked), which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about reversibility, cost, or whether adopting replaces an existing policy.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and the constraint appended. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter action tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action and a precondition. However, it omits the source of valid policy values, which is the key piece an agent needs.

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 description coverage is 0% and the sole 'policy' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The example value POLICY_TRADITION hints at the expected string format, but valid values and constraints remain unclear.

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 verb (adopt) and resource (social policy), with an example value (POLICY_TRADITION) and a scope constraint (an already-unlocked branch). It is distinguishable from siblings like available_policies and unlock_policy_branch, though it does not name them.

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 phrase 'within an already-unlocked branch' implies a precondition, but the description never tells the agent to enumerate valid options via available_policies first, nor when to prefer choose_ideology or change_ideology. Usage is only implied.

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