unlock_policy_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the resource cost (consumes a culture policy slot), but says nothing about whether the unlock is permanent, what permissions are needed, or side effects. The cost disclosure is the one genuine behavioral detail.

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 tight sentence that leads with the action and follows with an example and the cost. No filler, everything front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and its cost, but omits the source of valid branch identifiers, permanence of the unlock, and any post-unlock effect. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only types 'branch' as a bare string with no description. The description compensates by giving the example 'POLICY_BRANCH_TRADITION', which hints at the expected constant format, but it doesn't enumerate valid values or explain where to find them.

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 ('unlock') and resource ('policy branch/tree'), with a concrete example value. It clearly differs from read-only siblings like available_policies, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with choose_policy/choose_ideology.

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 mention of 'spending a culture policy slot' implies the precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. needing the branch available), and no named alternative. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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