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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the key behavioral trait: the prompt/input is discarded and only a fixed template is returned. This prevents an agent from expecting the parameters to affect the output. It does not mention side effects, but for a simple template-returning tool this is likely sufficient.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, and the important caveat about the discarded prompt follows immediately. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 with all-optional parameters that are described as discarded or check-only, the description covers the essential behavior: it returns a fixed three-step template. The lack of an output schema leaves some ambiguity about the exact template format, but the behavior is simple enough that nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only the general note that the prompt is discarded, while the schema already documents each parameter's discard-or-check behavior. No additional parameter-level meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 concrete action and object: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It also clearly warns that the prompt is discarded, so the agent understands this is a fixed-output template utility. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the unique template-returning behavior is enough to distinguish it.

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 statement about when to use think-steps versus sibling tools. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' implies that inputs do not influence the result, which gives some context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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