get_system_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state whether this action is safe, non-mutating, or requires any special permissions. It also doesn't disclose potential side effects or what happens if the optional parameter is omitted. The transparency-focused wording does not compensate for these gaps.

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 a single, compact sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with minimal waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description clearly indicates what the tool returns (system prompt and constraints), but it lacks usage guidance and behavioral disclosure. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not fully complete, especially due to missing annotations.

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 input schema has full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'includeImplementationDetails', which includes its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the complete system prompt and constraints'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools which focus on biblical resources and translations.

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 phrase 'for full transparency about AI behavior' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use cases, and no mention of prerequisites. The sibling tools are clearly different in domain, so the purpose is understandable, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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