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

The description does expose one behavioral trait: 'Prompt discarded', indicating the input is ignored. Yet with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about side effects, return structure, or deterministic behavior. The schema descriptions mention 'no disk access' and 'discarded after check', but the tool-level description remains insufficiently 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?

The description is very short—two sentences—and puts the main purpose first, followed by the input-discard note. It is efficient, but the brevity is so extreme that key clarity is lost; it would earn a 5 only if the briefness did not hurt understanding.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must explain the returned template on its own. It merely says 'three-step thinking template' without defining the steps or format. With nine optional parameters presented as unused, an agent has little idea of what the tool does or when it is meaningful.

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?

All 9 parameters have 100% description coverage in the schema, so the structured field provides the necessary meaning. The tool description adds no parameter semantics and does not clarify which of the 9 should ever be passed. Under the baseline rule for full schema coverage, a score of 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 states a clear action ('Return a three-step thinking template') with a specific resource, and none of the 28 sibling tools mention templates, so it appears distinct. However, 'thinking template' is still a vague term and not explicit about what the template contains, preventing a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to invoke this tool, no context, and no mention of alternatives like the many sibling tools. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' says something about handling input but does not help an agent decide to call this tool versus others. A tool with this broad parameter set needs more direction.

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