get_god_prompt

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the large payload (40KB, ~1145 lines), which is a key behavioral trait affecting context usage. It also implies a simple read-only retrieval with no parameters, though it does not explicitly mention side-effect-freedom or failure modes; for this simple static-file retrieval, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and file details, then immediately provides usage conditions and the alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema retrieval tool, the description is complete. It states what is returned, the size/context impact, when to use it, and the alternative for smaller context. The agent has all the information 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 and the schema is already fully descriptive (empty properties). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter guidance. There is nothing more to document.

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 specific resource ('the complete GodPrompt.md'), and characterizes it as a single-file universal system prompt. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the progressive-disclosure core/* tools as the alternative for smaller context, 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?

The description explicitly gives the trigger condition: 'Use this when you want the full payload in one shot.' It also names the alternative strategy, progressive disclosure via core/* tools, so the agent knows exactly when this tool is appropriate versus when it is not.

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