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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Prompt discarded,' giving no information about parameter handling, side effects, network access, or read-only nature. The schema descriptions hint at discarding inputs, but the tool description itself provides no transparency.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey essential information about inputs, outputs, or behavior, making it more of a stub than an efficient summary.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool actually does with its inputs, what the 'three-step thinking template' is, or why an agent would invoke it. The context signals reveal high complexity, but the description provides almost no coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics adequately, even though the descriptions are somewhat cryptic.

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 verb and object ('Return a three-step thinking template') but is extremely vague about what the tool is for and how it relates to its 28 siblings. It does not distinguish itself from similar shape-check or utility tools, and the purpose remains unclear beyond returning a template.

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 gives no context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. An agent would have no idea why to select this over, say, 'validate-json' or 'calc-eval'.

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