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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous—it could mean user input is ignored, parameters are ignored, or something else. No mention of side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the parameters. This is a serious transparency gap.

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, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It lacks structure and front-loading of critical information. The two sentences provide almost no useful content.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the template's purpose, how parameters influence it, or what the return value looks like. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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?

The schema provides full descriptions for all 9 parameters, but the tool description does not explain how any of them relate to the 'three-step thinking template.' The agent cannot determine which parameters are relevant or how to combine them. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Return a three-step thinking template' but gives no indication of what the template is for or how it relates to the 9 parameters. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like calc-eval or validate-json, which have clearer purposes. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic and adds confusion rather than clarity.

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. There are no conditions, examples, or exclusions mentioned. An agent has no basis to decide between this and any of the 27 sibling tools.

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