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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only vaguely states 'Prompt discarded' without explaining side effects, state changes, or whether the tool is read-only. Key behaviors such as the fate of the input parameters are left ambiguous.

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 extremely brief (two short sentences) and lacks the structure needed to convey the tool's operation. While it is terse, the brevity is not appropriate given the tool's complexity, and the opening phrase 'Return a three-step thinking template' provides no context for the parameters or output.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'three-step thinking template' is, how the parameters influence it, what the output format looks like, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the available information.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, meeting the 100% coverage baseline. However, the tool description itself adds no information about how parameters relate to the returned template, and several parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') suggest the inputs are irrelevant, which is confusing.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('a three-step thinking template'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's primary function. However, it lacks any elaboration on the template's content or relevance to the listed parameters.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or differentiation from the 26 sibling tools, making it impossible for an agent to select it appropriately.

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