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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Prompt discarded,' which hints that inputs are ignored, but it does not explain whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or how the returned template is produced. For a tool with nine parameters, this is insufficient transparency—the agent is left guessing about the actual behavior.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. 'Return a three-step thinking template' immediately states the core action, and 'Prompt discarded' conveys the input-ignoring behavior. However, it is so short that it barely covers the essentials, but that is still better than a bloated description, so it earns above average on this dimension.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the template actually is, why the parameters are allowed, and when to invoke it. It does none of that. The description lacks the context necessary for an agent to confidently use the tool beyond guessing that it is a stub.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter's schema description already states it is discarded or used only for a shape check. The main description adds 'Prompt discarded,' which is redundant with those schema remarks. Because the schema already documents each parameter's fate, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond a baseline, so the score stays at 3.

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 specific action ('Return a three-step thinking template'), which is better than a tautology. However, it never explains what the template actually is or how it relates to the tool's name, leaving the agent to guess whether it's a reasoning framework, a prompt template, or something else. It doesn't differentiate itself from any sibling tool, since there is no mention of alternatives.

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 use or avoid this tool. The description only says 'Return a three-step thinking template,' with no indication of scenarios, prerequisites, or a comparison to sibling tools. Nothing in the text helps an agent decide between this and a tool like 'status-catalog' or 'fetch-status'.

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