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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but it doesn't mention that the nine parameters are also ignored or how they relate to the tool's function. The template's nature and any side effects are entirely undisclosed.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the main action, but the second sentence ('Prompt discarded.') is cryptic and adds little value. It is concise but not effectively structured, as the key information is missing.

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 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does with its parameters, what the template looks like, when to call it, or what the response will be. This is far below the minimum needed for safe and correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema describes each parameter, but the tool description adds nothing about how they relate to the tool. Moreover, the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') conflict with the stated purpose of returning a thinking template, creating confusion rather than clarity. The description fails to compensate for this disconnect.

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 verb ('Return') and a resource ('three-step thinking template'), but the resource is vague—it doesn't explain what the template contains or how it's used. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'calc-eval' or 'validate-json'.

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 or when to prefer an alternative. The description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent has no idea what task this tool is meant to support.

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