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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, side effects, or discard behavior clearly. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous, and parameter descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' suggest the inputs may be ignored, but this is not explained.

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, which is concise, but it is not front-loaded with useful information. It consists of a single misleading sentence and the parameter descriptions are repetitive and unhelpful, so the brevity does not contribute to clarity.

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 no output schema, no required parameters, and no explanation of how inputs affect the output. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, what inputs are needed, or what 'three-step thinking template' means in this context.

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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, those descriptions are semantically disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' gives no indication of how it relates to returning a thinking template. The descriptions do not help an agent decide what values to provide.

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 'Return a three-step thinking template' is vague and does not clarify what the tool actually does. The parameter names (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are unrelated to 'thinking template', so an agent cannot infer the tool's purpose.

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 on when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or how it differs from sibling tools like calc-eval or validate-json. The description does not mention any alternatives or conditions for use.

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