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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It explicitly states 'Prompt discarded,' which transparently communicates that the input prompt is ignored. This is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that all parameters are discarded (though the schema does), nor does it describe any other edge behaviors like rate limits or side effects. The disclosure is partial but not misleading.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about discarding the prompt is placed second. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary model of brevity.

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 that simply returns a fixed template, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned and that the prompt is ignored. However, it does not describe the content or format of the 'three-step thinking template,' which could be useful for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. Given the lack of an output schema, this missing detail is a notable gap, though the tool's triviality lowers the severity.

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%, and the descriptions for all nine parameters explicitly mention they are discarded or ignored after a shape check. The tool's description adds nothing about parameters, but since the schema already conveys they are irrelevant, the description does not need to compensate. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter meaning adequately.

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 a specific action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and the resource (a template). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'calc-eval' or 'normalize-url' by its unique purpose, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is understandable, but the nature of the template is left vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other siblings. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only hint is that the prompt is discarded, implying it might be for a canned response, but no explicit usage context is given.

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