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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly tells the agent that the prompt is discarded and that the output is a fixed template, which communicates the main behavioral trait. It stops short of explicitly stating there are no external calls or side effects, but the return-a-template framing strongly implies a deterministic, side-effect-free operation.

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 only two short sentences with no filler, and the main function is front-loaded. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is concise but slightly cryptic; it could be clearer about whether 'prompt' means the user prompt, the parameters, or the whole call. Still, the structure is efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, plus nine optional parameters, the description is minimal but arguably viable because all parameters are optional and the schema explains them. It does not explain why so many varied parameters exist, whether to call with zero arguments, or what the three-step template actually looks like. This makes it minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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%, and each parameter's own description already explains that it is discarded or only shape-checked. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies. There is no contradiction or missing compensation required.

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 clearly states a specific action and artifact: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' The phrase 'Prompt discarded' also signals that this is not a prompt-processing tool, which helps distinguish it from the many validation and fetching siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus any alternative. 'Prompt discarded' hints at a limitation, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred contexts. An agent has to infer usage from the name and vague description.

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