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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Prompt discarded' plus the per-parameter 'discarded' notes disclose a key trait: the tool ignores user input and does not process the prompt. This is meaningful behavioral transparency, though it does not describe the exact template content or explicitly rule out all side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the primary function is front-loaded. 'Prompt discarded' earns its place as a behavioral caveat.

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?

For a tool that simply returns a fixed template, this is minimally adequate: the agent knows the output type and that the prompt is ignored. But it lacks context about when this tool is useful, what the three steps are, and how it fits among the many sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the schema already documents all nine optional parameters. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond implying they are irrelevant, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and object: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is not a tautology and communicates the tool's basic function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools or explain what the template contains.

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 on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling utilities. 'Prompt discarded' hints that the input content is ignored, but the description never states the intended invocation context or signals when an agent should choose think-steps over another tool.

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