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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Prompt discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not explain how the tool handles the nine input parameters, what side effects exist, or what it actually returns beyond a vague 'template.' The schema hints at parameter discarding, but the description itself is opaque.

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 and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the lack of substance.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified. It does not describe the return format, how the parameters relate to the output, or what 'three-step thinking template' means in practice. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are individually documented (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already covers them.

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 it is vague about what the template is, what it contains, or how it should be used. It does not differentiate from siblings, and 'Prompt discarded' adds ambiguity 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 or why it might be preferred over alternatives. No context is given about its intended role among the many sibling tools.

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