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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal one key trait: the prompt is discarded. However, it does not clarify whether the nine input parameters affect the result, what the returned template contains, or whether the tool has 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 two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it returns, the second warns that the prompt is ignored. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple template-returning tool, the description gives the core purpose and a key behavioral caveat. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves some ambiguity about how the nine optional parameters relate to the output and when to prefer this tool over the many siblings.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with high coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the 100% schema description coverage.

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 states the verb and deliverable: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is specific enough for an agent to know the tool produces a fixed template rather than performing a data operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling shape-checker and hint 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?

The intended use is implied: call this tool when a three-step thinking template is needed. 'Prompt discarded' provides an important constraint, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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