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

Because no annotations are present, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose one important behavioral fact, 'Prompt discarded', but it does not clarify whether all parameters are ignored, what side effects exist, or what the returned template looks like. The large parameter list with conflicting descriptions makes the tool's behavior more confusing rather than transparent.

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 short and avoids fluff, which is good. However, 'Prompt discarded.' is cryptic and the overall description is too minimal to carry the tool's unusual parameter surface. The brevity starts to sacrifice necessary context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a long list of parameters that each claim different fates, the tool needs a more complete description to be usable. An agent selecting among many sibling tools needs to know when to call this tool, what the returned template contains, and why the parameters are present. The current description does not provide that.

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 gives rich descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline should be around 3, but the tool description does not connect them to the tool's purpose. It says 'Prompt discarded' even though there is no prompt parameter, and the schema descriptions suggest various processing actions such as 'normalize or cite' or 'validate', creating conflicting expectations. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and fails to clarify why these parameters exist.

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 names a concrete action and result: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' The extra sentence 'Prompt discarded' clarifies that the tool does not process the input, which is important for AI agents. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling tools, but the function itself is specific.

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 about when to use this tool rather than one of the many sibling tools, such as the shape, hint, or validation tools. 'Prompt discarded' implies it should not be used for actual reasoning, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions are provided.

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