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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral trait mentioned is 'Prompt discarded,' which suggests inputs are ignored, but it does not clarify whether inputs are validated, whether the template is fixed, or whether there are any side effects. The schema descriptions mention 'shape checks' and 'discarded after' for each parameter, but the description itself is too sparse to convey this.

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 (two sentences) with no waste, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. Conciseness is not the same as completeness; here the brevity leaves critical information missing, making it inadequate.

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 the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the template is, what the parameters are for (even if discarded), how to interpret the output, or any error conditions. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without further information.

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 each parameter is individually documented. The description adds no new meaning about parameters; it merely says 'Prompt discarded,' which is consistent with each schema note but does not enhance understanding of how parameters affect the output. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description fails to synthesize parameter behavior.

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 resource, but 'three-step thinking template' is vague and doesn't clarify what the template contains or how it relates to the inputs. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings, which all appear to be utility/check tools. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints at behavior but not purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would not know if this tool is intended for general reasoning, planning, or something else, nor when to prefer it over siblings like 'calc-eval' or 'search-query-len'.

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