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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Prompt discarded' and each parameter description notes 'discarded after...', which transparently discloses that inputs are ignored. This is important behavioral info, but it does not describe what the template contains or any side effects (likely none). Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not deeply rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The key behavioral fact (inputs discarded) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence reinforces it. Every word earns its place.

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 trivial tool that returns a fixed template, the discarding behavior is clearly explained. However, it never describes what the three-step template actually contains, which could be relevant for an agent deciding whether to call it. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the return value's content. A bit more detail on the template's purpose or structure would make it complete.

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%, but the description adds the crucial fact that each parameter is discarded after the shape check or call. This goes beyond the schema's type-only descriptions, informing the agent that no input actually affects the result. Since no parameters are required, the agent knows they can pass anything or nothing. This is valuable semantic clarification.

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?

States a specific action 'Return a three-step thinking template' with a clear resource. The verb 'return' and resource 'template' are unambiguous, and the tool is clearly distinct from siblings like fetch-status or validate-json which perform checks. No confusion about what this tool does.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context where a three-step thinking template would be helpful, nor when to avoid it. The only hint is that inputs are discarded, but that doesn't help an agent decide to invoke it. Lacks any usage direction.

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