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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it explicitly says the prompt is discarded and the schema notes that most parameters are discarded after a shape check. This makes the read-only, deterministic nature clear, even though the exact template content remains unspecified.

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. The essential behavior — returns a template and discards the prompt — is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 trivial tool that returns a fixed template and ignores inputs, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, that inputs are discarded, and no output schema is necessary for such a simple response. The only minor gap is not describing the actual three-step template format, but that does not block correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond clarifying that the prompt/parameters are discarded, which is also noted in the schema descriptions. This matches the baseline for fully documented schema parameters.

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 action and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It also clarifies that the prompt is discarded, which distinguishes it from tools that process input content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings by name, though none of the siblings appear to offer the same template-returning behavior.

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 the sibling tools. 'Prompt discarded' implies the tool is not for resolving user queries through analysis, but the description never states what kind of request should route to think-steps or when to avoid it.

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