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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Prompt discarded,' which indicates the input is ignored, and the schema further clarifies each parameter is discarded after a shape check. The description also states it returns a template, covering the core behavior. However, it does not mention whether the output is constant, whether there are side effects, or any other operational details beyond the basic return value. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant wording. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral note about discarding the prompt is efficiently placed in the second. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary model of brevity.

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 having 9 parameters, the tool is conceptually simple, yet the description lacks essential context. It does not explain why the parameters exist if they are all discarded, nor does it describe the content or structure of the 'three-step thinking template.' An agent might be uncertain about what to pass and what to expect. Given the absence of an output schema and the minimal description, the tool is under-specified for practical use.

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%, with each of the 9 parameters having a clear description noting it is discarded. The tool description adds a general 'Prompt discarded' statement, but it does not provide any additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Per the calibration, with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 specific action: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as providing a static template. It is not a tautology and distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc-eval or fetch-status. However, it does not elaborate on what the template contains or how it should be used, leaving some ambiguity about the exact nature of the output.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states the function without context on how it fits into a workflow or when an agent should choose it over other tools. The absence of any usage direction makes this dimension weak.

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