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

The description mentions that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral note. However, it doesn't say whether the parameters are all ignored, whether the tool is purely read-only, or whether it has any side effects or prerequisites. With no annotations, this sparse disclosure leaves too much unknown.

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 only ten words, with every phrase earning its place: the verb and resource are stated, and the behavioral caveat is positioned second. It is front-loaded and perfectly concise for such a simple tool.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description doesn't describe the output format, the purpose of the parameters, or the intended usage context. An agent cannot decide when to call it or what to do with the result; the template's content is unspecified.

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 already documents all parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Prompt discarded' does not add semantics beyond the schema, which already states each parameter is discarded or shape-checked. No further clarification about how parameters affect the output is provided.

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 action ('return') and resource ('three-step thinking template'), which is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but no sibling has a similar purpose. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds a caveat but doesn't obscure the core 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 about when to use this tool, what kind of task it should be applied to, or when an alternative would be better. It also doesn't explain whether it's a fallback, a meta-tool, or a helper. The only hint is the name 'think-steps', which is not enough.

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