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

The description explicitly states 'Prompt discarded' and every parameter description reinforces this by noting it is discarded. This clearly discloses that inputs are ignored, which is valuable behavioral transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the template's contents or any side effects, though none are apparent.

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 contains no redundant words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential context, making it minimally useful rather than genuinely helpful. There is no structured breakdown or additional detail that would assist an agent.

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 having 13 parameters and no output schema, the description only gives a two-sentence overview. It lacks information about the template's format, when to use the tool, why so many promiscuous parameters exist, and what the return value will look like. This is incomplete for reliable tool 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?

Each parameter in the schema has a description explaining it is discarded, so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is specific enough to know the tool returns a template, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools or explain why this template exists. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds ambiguity about which prompt is meant.

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 this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about when a 'three-step thinking template' would be appropriate, nor any mention of sibling tools like calc-eval or web-fetch. The description leaves usage entirely to inference.

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