Get core GodPrompt skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them — the ~32KB size hint (token cost) and the instruction to reuse loaded context rather than reloading. It says nothing about rate limits, error behavior, or versioning, but those are secondary for a static-document read.

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, all load-bearing: the first defines the payload and its contents, the second gives the load/reuse policy, the third establishes the progressive-disclosure entry point. The returning-payload information is front-loaded before the operational advice.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value — and it does, naming the file and its major sections plus approximate size. Combined with the caching guidance, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the ordering relative to specific sibling documents remains implicit.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and required count is 0, confirming no parameter burden.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Returns SKILL.md') and enumerates its contents — the 6-phase protocol, Three Iron Laws, auto-classification — so the agent knows exactly what payload arrives. It signals entry-point status via 'Start here for progressive disclosure,' which differentiates it from siblings like get_protocols or get_gates, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance ('at the start of a task or after a context reset') and an explicit do-not-reload rule, which is actionable. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives ('use get_gates when you need X'), leaving the agent to infer the ordering among the other get_* tools.

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