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

The description openly states that the prompt is discarded, and the parameter descriptions reinforce that each value is checked and then discarded (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access'). Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is helpful, though it does not fully specify validation failure behavior.

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 and front-loaded, with only two sentences and no extraneous detail. The second sentence is slightly confusing because 'Prompt' is not a schema parameter, but the wording is still compact.

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 description leaves the relationship between the 9 input parameters and the returned template unexplained, and it never says that all parameters are optional or that the tool can be called with no arguments. For such a generic template tool, this missing context makes it hard for an agent to know how to invoke it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and already tells the agent what each parameter represents and that values are discarded, so the main description does not need to add much. It does not clarify why nine unrelated parameters are accepted, but it does not need to improve on the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool returns a three-step thinking template, giving a clear verb and object. However, the phrase 'Prompt discarded' introduces ambiguity because there is no 'prompt' parameter in the schema, and the nine input parameters are not explained in the main description.

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?

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling checkers, nor does it mention whether it should be called with no arguments or with one of the listed parameters. No alternatives are named or excluded.

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