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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important trait that the prompt is discarded, and the schema reinforces that values are only shape-checked. However, it does not describe output details, safety side effects, or behavior when no parameters are supplied.

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 two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though it would need a bit more usage context to earn a 5.

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 eight optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how the parameters relate to the returned template, an agent cannot determine what to supply or what the 'three-step thinking' result will look like. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 already provides high-coverage descriptions for all eight parameters, including that values are discarded after checks. The description adds little beyond the global 'Prompt discarded' note, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 operation and output ('Return a three-step thinking template') and adds a clear behavioral qualifier ('Prompt discarded'). It does not fully define what the template contains or distinguish itself from sibling tools, but it is not a tautology or vague restatement of the name.

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 on when to use think-steps versus any of the many sibling utilities, nor what inputs should be provided. The 'Prompt discarded' warning suggests the prompt is not used, but it does not explain the intended call scenario.

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