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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the prompt is discarded, but does not mention side effects, safety (read-only vs. mutating), or what happens to the input parameters. The tool appears to return a static template, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is under-specified, lacking any detail about the template's structure or usage. It is concise but not necessarily well-structured for an agent's needs.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'three-step thinking template' looks like, how it should be used, or what the agent should expect as a return value. The tool's purpose is clear only at a high level, but operational details are missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only implies input is discarded. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics, and the description does not detract from it.

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 ('Return a three-step thinking template') with a clear resource. It is distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with them. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds a note about input handling but doesn't clarify what the template contains.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer its purpose from the name alone.

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