Get full GodPrompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the detail annotations cannot convey: the payload is large (63KB, ~1145 lines), which is exactly the context-cost signal an agent needs before pulling it. It stops short of saying what file/content type comes back, but the cost disclosure is the substantive addition.

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 identity and size come first, the routing advice second, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to invoke.

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-param getter with no output schema, the description covers identity, magnitude and alternatives — enough to call it correctly. A small residual gap is that it doesn't confirm the return is raw markdown text versus a file reference, though this is a minor omission.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs and instead invests them in payload size and alternative tools.

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 (returns) and resource (the complete GodPrompt.md), and characterizes it as a single-file universal system prompt with concrete size (63KB, ~1145 lines). It also names the scenario in which a caller would want it, which separates it from the smaller-skill siblings.

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?

"Use this when you want the full payload in one shot" gives the selecting condition, and "For progressive disclosure (smaller context), use get_core_skill and the reference tools instead" names the alternatives and their trade-off. Both the when and the when-not are explicit.

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