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 that the prompt is discarded, which is a valuable transparency cue. However, it leaves ambiguous whether any of the seven input parameters are actually used, especially since some parameter descriptions (e.g., 'url: HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') suggest they may be processed. It also says nothing about side effects or lack thereof.

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 no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the secondary note about the prompt being discarded is concise and to the point.

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?

Despite its simple promise, the tool lists seven input parameters and has no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain why these parameters exist, whether they are ignored, or how to select between them. It also fails to position think-steps relative to the many specialized sibling tools, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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?

All seven parameters already have individual descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is effectively complete and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not reconcile 'Prompt discarded' with parameters that appear to have distinct purposes, leaving the agent unsure which arguments, if any, should be supplied.

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 clear, specific action: return a three-step thinking template. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as normalize-url or validate-json, which perform data operations rather than returning a reasoning aid. The added 'Prompt discarded' further defines the tool's scope, though it is slightly cryptic.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus any alternative. 'Prompt discarded' implies the prompt is irrelevant, but the description never states under what conditions an agent should call think-steps or when it would prefer another tool. The extensive sibling list provides context but is not referenced.

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