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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: 'Prompt discarded.' The input schema elaborates that each parameter is discarded after a shape check. However, without annotations, the description carries the full burden and leaves out important behavioral details such as side effects, output format, and the fact that all parameters are effectively ignored. It is partially transparent but 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 exactly two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the core purpose, the second states a critical behavioral trait. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Despite a complex schema with eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not clarify why an agent should pass any parameters, whether any are required, or what the returned template looks like. This leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool in a meaningful or correct manner.

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 already provides full descriptions for every parameter, including the fact that they are discarded after a shape check (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate-json, normalize-url, and weather-hint, which perform concrete checks or lookups. It does not, however, specify what the template contains or why it might be used, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios in which a thinking template is helpful, nor does it reference any sibling tools or exclusions. The only implicit hint is the word 'thinking', which is too vague to qualify as clear context.

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