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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for explaining side effects and behavior. It only says 'Prompt discarded' and 'Return a three-step thinking template,' leaving unclear whether the tool performs validation, ignores inputs, or has any side effects.

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, but brevity comes at the expense of clarity. It is front-loaded with the action, yet the rest of the sentence ('Prompt discarded') adds confusion rather than useful structure.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotation, and no explanation of the returned template. With 9 parameters and a vague one-line description, an agent lacks essential context to invoke the tool confidently or interpret its result.

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 includes descriptions for all 9 parameters, but they are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose—e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' and 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check.' These descriptions do not clarify how the parameters contribute to returning a thinking 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 says 'Return a three-step thinking template' which gives a verb and object, but it does not explain what the template contains, how it relates to the tool name, or how it differs from the many sibling tools. The meaning is too vague to guide selection.

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 any sibling. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic and does not clarify the intended use case or conditions under which the tool should be chosen.

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