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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Prompt discarded' is a meaningful behavioral disclosure: inputs are not used for output, so there is no hidden prompt leakage or side effect. However, it does not mention whether the tool ignores all parameters, what the template actually contains, or any further runtime behavior, leaving important behavior uncovered.

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 only two sentences and contains no extraneous words. It front-loads the main action and quickly states that the prompt is discarded. It is concise, though slightly cryptic for a nine-optional-parameter tool.

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?

Despite many optional parameters and no output schema, the description never explains what the three-step template is, how it should be used, or why the nine parameters are present. An agent does not know whether to supply any parameters, what shape the output will take, or how this tool fits into a workflow, so the contextual picture is incomplete.

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 nine parameters have full schema descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds nothing about how the parameters relate to the three-step template or whether they are intentionally bypassed. At baseline 3 because the schema already documents each parameter individually.

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 and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This makes it clearly a template-returning tool. 'Prompt discarded' also hints that its output is not tied to the input, which helps distinguish it from the checker/hint utilities in the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. There is no mention of intended context, alternatives, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer when 'Return a three-step thinking template.' would be the correct call.

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