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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions that the prompt is discarded and does not clarify side effects, return structure, or what happens with the seven input parameters. The schema hints at discarding behavior, but the description itself is too thin.

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 has no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the data-handling note is brief. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful context.

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 with seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the template's format, the role of the parameters, whether inputs are required, or what the agent should expect as a return value. An agent could not reliably invoke this tool correctly based on this definition.

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 input schema describes all seven parameters individually with more than 80% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning and does not clarify why so many unrelated parameters exist or which are required.

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 outcome: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic resource involved. However, it does not differentiate from siblings or explain what 'thinking template' means in practice.

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 this tool versus any of the many siblings. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' provides no contextual trigger or exclusion criteria, so an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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