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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one notable behavior: 'Prompt discarded.' However, it does not explain whether the input parameters affect the output, whether any side effects occur, or what the response contains beyond being a template.

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 no filler or repetition. Both sentences carry distinct information: the output and the prompt-handling behavior. It could be more complete, but as far as conciseness goes it is efficient.

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 varied parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to give an agent a complete operational picture. It does not explain how parameters map to the template, whether any are effectively required, or what the returned template looks like. The schema helps per-parameter, but the tool-level contract remains incomplete.

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 each parameter already has meaningful documentation in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high baseline.

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: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This makes the core action clear and distinguishes it from the sibling validation/hint tools. However, it does not explain what the template contains or how it relates to the nine input 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The note 'Prompt discarded' provides a warning about prompt handling, but it does not help an agent decide when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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