Get GodPrompt anti-patterns

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.