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

No annotations are present, so the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the prompt/input is discarded, indicating that the tool ignores its parameters and returns a fixed output. However, it does not describe any side effects, return format, or limitations, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 terse—a single sentence. While it is compact, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It omits essential details about the template's content and use, making it more of a stub than a well-structured description.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain both behavior and return value, but it does neither. It states the tool returns a template but never describes the template's structure or purpose. With 9 parameters all optional and ignored, an agent would be hard-pressed to know what to do with the output.

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 are described in the schema with clear 'discarded' or 'no access' notes, so the schema already covers their semantics. The tool description adds nothing new about parameter usage beyond the blanket statement 'Prompt discarded', which reiterates the schema. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the high-coverage 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 clear action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and identifies a specific resource. However, it does not explain what the template is or how it differs from sibling tools that also retrieve information. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints that input is ignored, but the purpose remains vague regarding its intended use.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to decide between this and, say, 'calc-eval' or 'web-fetch'.

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