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 does disclose one meaningful behavior—'Prompt discarded' tells the agent that inputs will not affect the output—which is valuable. However, it stops there; it doesn't say whether the returned template varies, whether there are side effects, or what the template contains, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler words. It earns its brevity, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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 annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin to be complete. It doesn't explain what a 'three-step thinking template' is, how the 9 parameters relate to the tool's actual function, or what an agent should expect back. The schema covers parameter semantics but the overall tool contract remains underspecified.

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%—all 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema—so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter's semantics (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so no additional compensation is required.

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 verb and resource ('Return a three-step thinking template'), which is better than a tautology, but 'three-step thinking template' is vague—it doesn't explain what the three steps are or why an agent would invoke this. It does not distinguish this tool from the 26 siblings (e.g., domain-shape, file-path-ok) whose names suggest similar shape-checking purposes, so an agent cannot tell which tool fits a given task.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives are provided. The terse phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints that inputs are irrelevant, but the description never states when an agent should select this tool over the many shape/check siblings in the list.

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