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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or predictable behavior. The phrase 'Prompt discarded.' is cryptic and does not clarify what happens to the input or what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded, but it is vague and lacks clear structure. It is not wordy, yet it fails to convey useful information efficiently.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how parameters relate, or what a 'three-step thinking template' entails, leaving an agent without sufficient context to call the tool correctly.

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%, meeting the high coverage baseline. However, the tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameters; the schema descriptions are present but appear arbitrary and unrelated to the stated purpose, limiting meaningful guidance.

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 says 'Return a three-step thinking template' which closely restates the tool name 'think-steps', making it tautological. It does not specify what the template contains or why it is distinct from sibling tools, and the second sentence 'Prompt discarded.' adds confusion 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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