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

The sentence 'Prompt discarded' is a real behavioral disclosure: it tells the agent the tool ignores the prompt and returns a static template. However, 'prompt' is not an input parameter, and the schema descriptions suggest a variety of validation/normalization behaviors that the description never reconciles, so the transparency is incomplete.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main behavior stated first and the caveat second. 'Prompt discarded' is compact and slightly cryptic, but the overall structure is efficient and free of filler.

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?

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified: an agent cannot tell which inputs are relevant, what the three-step template actually looks like, or why so many check-shaped parameters exist. The schema fills some gaps, but the tool-level description does not provide enough context for confident invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and carries the semantic weight; the description adds no parameter-level detail. The many 'discarded' notes in the schema imply that inputs do not affect the output, but the description itself does not define the relationship between the nine parameters and the returned template.

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 lead sentence clearly states the deliverable ('three-step thinking template') and the action ('Return'), so an agent can identify the core function. It is not fully differentiated from sibling tools and does not explain what the template contains, but the purpose is not vague or tautological.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the 26 sibling tools, and it names no alternatives or exclusions. An agent is left to guess whether think-steps is meant for planning, decomposition, or as a final response format.

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