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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, what happens to the inputs, or the nature of the returned template. 'Prompt discarded' hints at input handling but is ambiguous and does not explain behavior for each parameter. This is a severe transparency gap.

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 extremely short, which might seem concise, but it fails to convey essential information. The two sentences do not earn their place because they are vague and do not clarify the tool's function. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the template contains, how parameters are used (beyond vague 'discarded' hints), or what the agent should expect. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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%, with each parameter individually described (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents all parameters adequately. Per the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return') and a resource ('three-step thinking template'), but it is vague about what this template actually is or how it relates to the tool's name and the 9 input parameters. It does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like calc-eval or geo-hint, which have more concrete purposes. 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 any of the 27 siblings. No context, conditions, or exclusions are provided. The description does not mislead, but it offers zero help for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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