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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Prompt discarded' is a meaningful trait: it tells the agent that the prompt content is not used, reducing concerns about leakage or dependence on input. This is valuable context, though it could have gone further by explicitly stating that all input parameters are ignored and that the tool has no 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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the discarded-prompt behavior is stated in the second. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the tool accepts nine optional parameters.

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?

The description is minimally viable: an agent can infer that calling the tool with no arguments returns a three-step template. However, it does not explain why the nine optional parameters exist, whether they affect the output, or what the template actually contains. With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to determine correct invocation and interpretation.

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 parameter descriptions already carry detailed semantics. The tool description adds little per-parameter meaning, only the general note that the prompt is discarded. This meets the baseline for a high-coverage schema but does not go beyond it.

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 resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is specific enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool produces. The 'Prompt discarded' note also helps set expectations that this is not an analysis or generation tool, distinguishing it from the sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of appropriate contexts or exclusions. The description implies it is for obtaining a thinking template, but it does not state when an agent should invoke it or why it might be preferred over other tools.

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