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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'Prompt discarded' and each parameter description notes that inputs are discarded, implying the tool ignores its inputs. However, this is not clearly explained in the main description, and the tool does not state whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or returns anything beyond the template. The behavior is only hinted at through scattered parameter notes.

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, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential information such as what the template looks like, how it should be used, and what 'Prompt discarded' means. The brevity does not earn its place because it fails to convey the tool's behavior.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a one-sentence description, the information is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the three-step template contains, how to format inputs, whether outputs are structured, or what the tool is actually for. The description is far too sparse to support correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter's type and note about being discarded. The main description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the discard concept with 'Prompt discarded.' It does not clarify why nine parameters exist if they are all ignored, nor how the parameters relate to the returned template. This adds confusion rather than value.

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 ('Return a three-step thinking template') and names the resource (a template). However, it is vague about what the template contains and does not differentiate from any of the 26 sibling tools, several of which might also return structured output. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools include many utilities (e.g., calc-eval, validate-json, normalize-url), but no comparison or selection hints are provided.

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