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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the prompt is discarded and several parameters are explicitly marked as discarded in the schema, but it does not state overall side-effect behavior or what the generated template contains.

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 very short and front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes ('Prompt discarded' is meaningful). It is concise, though the brevity leaves some context gaps.

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, an agent needs more context about how inputs are handled and what the three-step template looks like. The description is too sparse to support confident invocation in varied situations.

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 baseline is 3 and parameters are individually documented. The top-level description adds no further parameter semantics and does not clarify whether any of the optional fields affect 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 description names a specific action and deliverable: return a three-step thinking template. The added 'Prompt discarded' clarifies what the tool ignores, though it does not differentiate it from siblings or describe the template content.

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 for when to call this tool instead of any sibling, nor any context about expected inputs. The description only states what it returns, leaving an agent to infer applicability.

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