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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the key behavioral trait: the prompt is discarded and the output is a fixed template, implying no input processing or side effects. It does not spell out that all schema parameters are ignored, but the combination of optional params and 'discarded' language makes this reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and no filler. Every word earns its place, which is ideal for agent parsing.

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 of this trivial complexity, the description is nearly complete: it states the output, the input behavior, and there are no required parameters or output schema to document. The only minor gap is not enumerating the three steps, but the label 'three-step thinking template' is self-explanatory to an agent.

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 documents every parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the fact that the prompt is discarded, leaving the schema to carry the weight; baseline 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Return a three-step thinking template') and adds a hard behavioral qualifier ('Prompt discarded'), so an agent can tell this is a fixed-output helper rather than a data-processing tool. It is distinct from every sibling in the list, none of which return thinking templates.

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?

It clearly implies when to call it — whenever a generic three-step thinking template is needed — and 'Prompt discarded' communicates that this is not a tool for processing user input. It does not name alternatives, but the sibling set contains no overlapping tool, so no exclusion is needed.

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