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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key behavior that the prompt is discarded. However, it does not explain whether the nine parameters influence the returned template, whether the template is fixed, or whether there are any side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 with no filler: the main return statement is front-loaded, and the caveat about discarding the prompt is a separate concise sentence. Every word 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?

The description is too thin for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema. It doesn't state whether arguments are needed, whether the returned three-step template varies, or what the template's shape is; the schema handles parameter meanings but not the overall invocation context.

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?

Parameter semantics are already fully covered by the input schema (100% coverage), with each property including its own discard or use note. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly names a specific deliverable: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' The second sentence, 'Prompt discarded,' clarifies that the tool does not process the prompt. It doesn't name a sibling for contrast, but no sibling serves the same template-returning purpose, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. The only implicit signal is that the prompt is discarded, so an agent should not use it to analyze prompt content; otherwise the intended call context is left to inference.

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