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 behavioral value by stating the deterministic classification result (one of 9 types) and the return of a protocol name, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and output, then add the routing purpose. Every phrase earns its place, and the 9 task types are compactly enumerated without unnecessary elaboration.

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, read-only classification tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the output (protocol name), and the task type taxonomy. A slightly fuller explanation of what a 'protocol name' refers to could help, but the sibling tools and title provide enough surrounding 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already documents the single 'description' parameter with examples. The description does not need to add parameter details; it reinforces the input but does not significantly expand on what the schema already provides.

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 ('classify'), a clear resource ('task description'), and the exact output ('one of GodPrompt's 9 task types ... return the matching protocol name'). It also lists all 9 types, making the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly different from the sibling getter tools.

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 'Useful for routing tasks through the right workflow' gives clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the routing purpose is specific enough to guide selection among the sibling getter tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a non-destructive profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the exact source path, the approximate size (~9KB), and the kind of content returned, which gives the agent useful expectations beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. The most important information (what is returned and from where) is front-loaded, and the usage cue and file size each earn their 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 parameterless, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the file, summarizes its contents, gives a usage trigger, and even notes the file size. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add parameter-level meaning where no parameters exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('references/03-ANTI-PATTERNS.md'), then clarifies content with concrete examples: red flags, rationalizations, and recovery patterns. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_god_prompt or get_core_skill because it names the anti-pattern file and its purpose.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Load when you catch yourself rationalizing.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not name when not to use it or compare it to sibling alternatives, 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.

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the approximate size (~11KB), the content scope (6-phase protocol, Three Iron Laws, task auto-classification), and the progressive-disclosure pattern. Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the additional content description is a meaningful supplement.

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 sentences with no waste: the primary return value is front-loaded, followed by size and content details, and then clear action guidance. 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 parameterless retrieval tool with a well-covered annotation set, the description is fully complete. It states what is returned (SKILL.md), what it contains, how large it is, and when to load it. No missing information is needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 and schema coverage is effectively complete, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related content.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns SKILL.md') and clearly identifies the resource as the core protocol to be loaded on every message. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting this is the lean base context and the starting point for progressive disclosure, so an agent can distinguish it from get_protocols or get_god_prompt.

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 gives explicit usage context: load this on every message and start here for progressive disclosure. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'always load this first' guidance is sufficient for a zero-parameter retrieval tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructiveikuha. The description adds meaningful context about the returned file's contents and its size (~9KB), which goes beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradiction exists.

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 compact sentences front-load the core return value and follow with a practical usage trigger and size estimate. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly and understand what to expect. The annotations handle safety, and the description handles content and purpose.

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)Skip, so there is no parameter schema to supplement. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than any parameter details, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a clear verb ('Returns') and a specific resource (references/02-GATES.md), and further describes what it contains: verification checklists, THE GATE, and structured report templates. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_protocols or get_anti_patterns, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Load when you need to verify work before claiming completion.' It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection among the listed siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the payload size (41KB, ~1145 lines) informs context-budget decisions, and it clarifies the content is a universal system prompt. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended efficiently. Every word 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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent what is returned, its size, and when to use it, including alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 of 4 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters (correctly), but it does clarify that there is no configuration or input needed — it simply returns the full file.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns the complete GodPrompt.md file, with concrete details (41KB, ~1145 lines, universal system prompt for AI software development). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_core_skill and reference tools as alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('when you want the full payload in one shot') and when not to ('For progressive disclosure, use get_core_skill and the reference tools instead'). This is perfect guidance, even naming specific sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld false, idempotent, and non-destructive, so less is required from the description. The description adds meaningful context by identifying the returned file, its purpose, task coverage, and approximate size (~13KB), going beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the resource being returned, and every sentence contributes: return target, content scope, trigger condition, and size. 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent retrieval tool, this description is complete: an agent knows what it returns, when to use it, and what content to expect. The sibling context and annotations cover the remaining selection cues.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. It still clarifies that the returned artifact is a protocol reference and which task types it covers, which is the only relevant 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns references/01-PROTOCOLS.md — deep execution guides for each task type'. It unpacks the document's scope by enumerating the task types and frames it as distinct from the core skill, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling retrieval tools.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use cue: 'Load this when the task requires detailed protocol steps beyond the core skill.' It does not explicitly name exclusionary alternatives like get_gates or get_anti_patterns, but the guidance is clear enough for tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes a 'summary of what's included,' which is useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavior beyond a simple read operation.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler, and the key result—current version and summary—is front-loaded. Every part 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 getter, the description covers what the agent needs to know: what it returns. It doesn't describe the exact format of the version string or summary, but no output schema exists and the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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 schema is complete at 100% coverage and there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description confirms what the returned content covers, which is adequate for a parameterless call.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource: the current GodPrompt version plus a summary of what's included. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_god_prompt or get_protocols, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need the current version and a summary of what's included. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_god_prompt or get_core_skill, so usage context is only inferred.

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