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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It says 'Prompt discarded' but fails to explain that the tool likely ignores all input parameters or returns a fixed template. The per-parameter 'discarded' notes imply input is ignored, but this is not clearly stated, and the phrase 'Prompt discarded' is misleading since no prompt parameter exists.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, but it lacks essential information. It is concise in length but under-specified, so the conciseness is not effective—it omits context that an agent needs.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the three-step template is, what the parameters do, how they are validated, or what the tool returns beyond a vague template. An agent has no way to understand the tool's behavior or proper 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but those descriptions only say 'discarded after...' which adds little meaning. The descriptions do not clarify why the parameters exist, whether they are validated, or how they affect the returned template. The agent cannot determine if it should provide any of these parameters. This is confusing rather than helpful.

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 verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' However, the clause 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous—there is no prompt parameter in the schema, so the agent may be confused about what input is expected. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like calc-eval or citation.

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 context, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide to call think-steps over other tools.

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