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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful behavioral trait: the prompt is discarded, implying the output is fixed and not derived from the prompt. However, it does not explicitly address side effects, safety, or the lack of input-dependent behavior beyond that single phrase.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no filler. 'Prompt discarded' is a compact caveat that earns its place. The description is appropriately concise for the small amount of information it contains.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the template looks like or how the tool should be used. Nine parameters are optional but unexplained at the tool level, and the return value is only vaguely described as a 'three-step thinking template.' This is insufficient for confident tool selection and 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?

The schema already documents all nine parameters with descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only says 'Prompt discarded,' which does not map to the listed parameters or clarify how to choose among them.

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 and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is not a tautology and it conveys the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools, though the 'Prompt discarded' line hints that this is not a normal processing 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of any sibling, and there are no exclusions or conditions. The only extra information, 'Prompt discarded,' is behavioral rather than usage-oriented. An agent is left to infer why and when this tool should be selected.

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