Get GodPrompt protocols

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld false, idempotent, and non-destructive, so less is required from the description. The description adds meaningful context by identifying the returned file, its purpose, task coverage, and approximate size (~13KB), going beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the resource being returned, and every sentence contributes: return target, content scope, trigger condition, and size. No filler or repetition.

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, idempotent retrieval tool, this description is complete: an agent knows what it returns, when to use it, and what content to expect. The sibling context and annotations cover the remaining selection cues.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. It still clarifies that the returned artifact is a protocol reference and which task types it covers, which is the only relevant context.

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 references/01-PROTOCOLS.md — deep execution guides for each task type'. It unpacks the document's scope by enumerating the task types and frames it as distinct from the core skill, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling retrieval tools.

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 an explicit when-to-use cue: 'Load this when the task requires detailed protocol steps beyond the core skill.' It does not explicitly name exclusionary alternatives like get_gates or get_anti_patterns, but the guidance is clear enough for tool selection.

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