Get core GodPrompt skill

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: approximate response size (~16KB), that it is a lean protocol rather than the full prompt, and that its content is reusable across a context. No contradiction 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what is returned, the second gives actionable usage guidance, and the final phrase reinforces its role as the entry point. Every sentence contributes meaning without fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the return value (SKILL.md), its size and contents, when to call it, and how to handle the returned context. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because the description instead clarifies what the returned resource contains and how to use it.

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 names a specific deliverable, 'SKILL.md', and states its contents: the universal 6-phase protocol, Three Iron Laws, and task auto-classification. It also positions it as 'the lean core protocol' and 'Start here', distinguishing it from siblings like get_god_prompt or get_protocols without needing to open their schemas.

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 timing cues: 'Load it at the start of a task or after a context reset'. It also tells the agent what not to do — reload it on every message — and directs agents to 'Start here for progressive disclosure', which effectively makes it the entry point among sibling tools.

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