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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the prompt is discarded, implying input is ignored, but it does not explicitly say that all parameters are no-ops. It also fails to disclose what the template contains, whether it is static, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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, highly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. There is no wasted wording. However, it omits any explanation of the parameters or usage, making it under-specified relative to the tool's complexity. It is concise but not fully structured for agent understanding.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain why the parameters exist, what the three-step template contains, or how an agent would use this tool effectively. There is no indication of expected behavior, edge cases, or relationship to siblings. An agent cannot determine when or why to call this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter is individually described as discarded. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It does say 'Prompt discarded,' which loosely indicates that inputs are ignored, but it does not map to specific parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and identifies the resource. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from siblings. The presence of 9 parameters that are all described as 'discarded' could confuse an agent about the tool's actual scope, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 the 27 siblings. It does not mention conditions, alternatives, or prerequisites. The only hint is 'Prompt discarded,' which implies a thinking aid, but there is no explicit context for when it should be invoked.

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