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

The description explicitly notes that the prompt is discarded, and parameter descriptions indicate parameters are discarded after shape checks or no disk access is performed. This provides some transparency about side-effect-free behavior, but it does not explain how the template is generated or any other behavioral aspects.

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 brief (two sentences) and each sentence carries information. It is concise and to the point, though the content is minimal. The structure is straightforward and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned template looks like or how it is used. The tool's purpose in the context of its siblings is unclear, and the description leaves the agent without enough context to know when or how to invoke it effectively.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, each with a description. However, the description text itself adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats or ignores the parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a three-step thinking template') but does not clarify what the template is, how it relates to the parameters, or why it exists. It is not a tautology but remains vague and fails to distinguish the tool from its siblings.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools. It mentions no conditions, scenarios, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting it.

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