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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Prompt discarded' without explaining side effects, what happens to parameters, whether it is read-only, or what the template contains. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is a critical gap.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a single sentence that fails to convey essential information about the tool's function or parameters. This is not effective conciseness but rather omission.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what the template looks like, or how the parameters are used. The description provides almost no actionable context.

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% and each parameter has its own description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so the schema provides the primary meaning. However, the tool description adds nothing to connect the parameters to the 'three-step thinking template', leaving the overall intent unclear.

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 'Return a three-step thinking template' which is a verb and a resource, but it is vague because the template's content and purpose are unspecified. It does not distinguish from siblings like calc-eval or validate-json, and the connection to the 9 parameters is unclear. '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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or examples. The tool is indistinguishable from other utility tools based on the description alone.

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