Get full GodPrompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the large payload size (47KB, ~1145 lines) and that it returns the full single-file content in one shot. This helps the agent anticipate context usage, going beyond the structured 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?

Three concise sentences: the first front-loads the primary action and payload description, the second states the primary use case, and the third names the alternative for different needs. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, the size, and when to use it versus alternatives. The annotations cover the operational safety profile. Nothing essential 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, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. No compensation needed.

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 and resource: 'Returns the complete GodPrompt.md', and further identifies it as a single-file universal system prompt. It differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_core_skill and reference tools as alternatives for progressive disclosure. An agent can immediately understand what this tool provides and how it differs from its 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you want the full payload in one shot') and when not to ('For progressive disclosure (smaller context)'), naming the alternative tools. This is clear, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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