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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: the prompt is discarded and a fixed template is returned. However, it does not mention side effects, failure modes, or that all input parameters are effectively ignored; only the schema hints at that.

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 filler. The core return value is front-loaded and the caveat about the prompt being discarded is cleanly separated.

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?

The description is nearly adequate for a simple fixed-template tool, but it omits when to use it and what the three-step template actually contains. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent gets only a minimal functional description plus the schema's per-field notes.

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 description adds no parameter semantics, but the input schema provides a description for every one of the eight parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate.

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 clear action and object: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' The verb+resource makes the tool distinguishable from the many sibling shape-check and fetch utilities, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 instead of alternatives. 'Prompt discarded' warns about what will not be used, but it does not give an agent any condition, context, or competing tool to prefer.

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