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

The description openly discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a meaningful behavioral trait not carried by annotations. It does not mention side effects, required inputs, or output details, but for a tool that appears to return a static template this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the output, the second states a key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

While the tool is conceptually simple, an agent is left without guidance about which parameters to pass, what the three-step template looks like, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this one-sentence description insufficient for confident invocation in ambiguous contexts.

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 tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema descriptions are abundant, each stating the parameter's purpose and that it is discarded after use. With schema description coverage essentially at 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to repeat the 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 concrete verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is not a tautology and the name 'think-steps' aligns with the stated behavior. However, it does not specify what the template contains or how it relates to the sibling tools.

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?

'Prompt discarded' is a useful warning that the tool ignores the prompt, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent is not told when to prefer this tool over the many sibling tools or whether it is intended as a fallback/stub.

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