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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the prompt is discarded. It does not explain how the nine optional parameters affect behavior, what the returned template looks like, or any side effects. The claim 'Prompt discarded' is minimal and ambiguous.

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 concise at two sentences, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, yet the brevity leaves critical details (parameter usage, output format) unaddressed. It reads more as an under-specification than a deliberate, complete minimalism.

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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what happens with the parameters beyond generic 'discarded' notes in the schema, nor does it describe the returned template's nature. The tool's overall behavior is too vague for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description in the schema (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('three-step thinking template'), but the resource is vague—what constitutes a thinking template is undefined. It is not a tautology, but it does not clearly differentiate from siblings or explain its unique function within the set.

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 the many siblings listed. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions favoring this tool. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints at behavior but does not clarify usage scenarios.

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