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

The description says 'Prompt discarded,' hinting that the input prompt is ignored, but it does not disclose that all parameters are effectively discarded after shape validation (as suggested by the schema descriptions). With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral clarity, and it falls short by not explaining what happens to parameters or what the 'three-step thinking template' actually contains.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for such a simple action.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description offers only a bare statement without any context. It does not explain why parameters exist, what the thinking template is, or what the tool does with the inputs. This is wholly inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's role, especially considering the schema's 'discarded' hints are not reflected in the description.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it only mentions 'Prompt discarded,' which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear action: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json' which serve different purposes. However, it does not explain why the tool accepts 9 parameters, which leaves some ambiguity about the actual function.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, intended scenarios, or exclusions. Given the large sibling list, an agent cannot determine when to invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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