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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the prompt is discarded, but it does not mention that all input parameters are also discarded after checks, or whether the operation has side effects or requires special permissions.

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 very concise: two short sentences with no filler. The key behavioral note about the prompt being discarded is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

Despite having 9 optional input parameters and no output schema, the description never explains what the three-step template contains, how parameters relate to the template, or what output the caller should expect. The 'discarded after shape check' semantics appear only in parameter descriptions, which leaves the overall tool context incomplete.

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 each of the 9 parameters already has a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully compensates, 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 specific action and outcome: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' However, 'thinking template' is vague, and the description does not clarify what the three steps are or how this tool relates to its many siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints that this tool ignores the prompt, but it does not state the intended use case or exclude any sibling tools.

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