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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, or data handling. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and does not clarify the tool's behavior.

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, but brevity without substance is not effective. It lacks sufficient detail to be considered well-structured or informative.

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?

The tool is missing essential context: what the 'three-step thinking template' is, how the parameters relate, what the output looks like, and when it should be used. The absence of an output schema or any example further compounds the incompleteness.

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?

Although schema descriptions exist for each parameter, they are disconnected from the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' and 'City name for a public weather hint' imply multiple incompatible functions, leaving the parameters semantically meaningless in the context of 'three-step thinking template'.

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 'Return a three-step thinking template' does not match the extensive parameter list (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) which appear to belong to distinctly different operations. There is no coherent statement of what the tool actually does.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus any of the 28 sibling tools. The description offers no context, use cases, or conditions for invocation.

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