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

It discloses one meaningful behavioral trait: 'Prompt discarded,' which tells the agent the prompt is not used. However, with no annotations and seven optional parameters, the description does not clarify whether the parameters affect the output or are ignored, nor what the returned template actually contains. Some behavioral transparency is present, but the description carries more of the burden than it should.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and 'Prompt discarded' is a compact, valuable addition. 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 tool with a 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the return value's structure, whether parameters should be populated at all, or how the template might vary. The schema descriptions help, but the overall definition still leaves an agent uncertain about correct invocation.

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 seven parameters have individual schema descriptions explaining their intended use and discard behavior, so schema coverage is essentially complete. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is not a tautology and clearly states the core action. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though no sibling appears to offer this same template behavior.

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 alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or typical invocation context. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints that the tool ignores prompt content, but it never says when choosing this tool is appropriate.

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