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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The only behavioral note is 'Prompt discarded,' which is cryptic and likely refers to ignoring an input prompt, but it doesn't explain side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to the 9 input parameters. It fails to convey the tool's operational 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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified—the brevity works against clarity. It's not overly verbose, but it sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness.

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 and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the template looks like, how to use the parameters, or what 'Prompt discarded' means in context. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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 covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no information about the parameters—it doesn't even mention them. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action and result: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is specific enough to indicate the tool produces a template, but it doesn't explain what the template contains or how it differs from sibling tools like 'agent-tool-index' or 'status-catalog'. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds ambiguity rather than clarifying purpose.

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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, contexts, or exclusions. An agent would have no clue whether to call this for a specific task or use a sibling tool.

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