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

The description explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: 'Prompt discarded' — telling the agent that all input is ignored. With no annotations provided, this carries the full burden and is genuinely useful. It could add that the output is a fixed template regardless of input, but 'Prompt discarded' largely covers the critical behavior.

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 zero wasted words. The core purpose is stated first, and the critical behavioral caveat ('Prompt discarded') is front-loaded. 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 that returns a fixed template and discards input, this is nearly complete. The agent knows what it does and that input is irrelevant. It could briefly describe the template's contents, but with no output schema and a trivial fixed-return behavior, this is sufficient for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by stating 'Prompt discarded,' which tells the agent that none of the 9 parameters actually affect the result. This prevents the agent from wasting effort populating parameters that will be ignored — meaningfully more than the schema alone provides.

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 verb+resource ('Return a three-step thinking template') that aligns with the tool name. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool. The purpose is unambiguous even without sibling contrast.

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 name sibling tools or state conditions for selection. The only implicit usage signal is the name 'think-steps' suggesting a reasoning aid, but that is left to inference.

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