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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the payload size (42KB, ~1145 lines), which is useful context for context-window management. However, it doesn't describe the return format or whether the content is returned as a single string or file attachment, which would be useful 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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the payload size is given as a concrete detail, and the alternative routing is stated in the final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned, the size, and when to use it versus alternatives. The only minor gap is the exact return format (e.g., raw markdown string vs. structured wrapper), but with no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the essential decision-making context.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.

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 the tool returns the complete GodPrompt.md, a single-file universal system prompt for AI software development, and specifies its size (42KB, ~1145 lines). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_core_skill or get_gates.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool when you want the full payload in one shot, and names the alternative approach (get_core_skill and reference tools) for progressive disclosure with smaller context. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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