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

The description explicitly states 'Prompt discarded,' which is a key behavioral disclosure that the tool ignores its input. Since annotations are absent, this note carries the full burden and is transparent about the tool's side-effect-free, read-only nature. However, it does not mention broader aspects like auth or rate limits, but for this simple tool that is acceptable.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then notes the discarded prompt. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema. The description does not explain why there are so many parameters, which ones are relevant, or what the 'three-step thinking template' looks like. The note 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous about whether structured parameters are ignored or just the free-text prompt. This leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, giving a baseline of 3. However, the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters and actually contradicts the parameter descriptions. The parameters are described as being used for specific tasks (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), but the tool description says it only returns a template and discards prompts. This confusion prevents the description from adding any semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' The verb 'Return' and the object 'three-step thinking template' are specific, and the tool name 'think-steps' matches. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'calc-eval' or 'validate-json'.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' gives no usage context.

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