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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but it omits details about return format, side effects, or any interaction with the environment. For a tool that returns a static template, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 very brief (two sentences), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and fails to front-load essential information about the template's content or usage, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 severely incomplete. It does not describe what the template looks like, how parameters (if any) affect the output, or what the agent should expect as a response. The agent would have no basis for predicting the tool's behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter semantics; it only mentions that the prompt is discarded, which is ambiguous about whether parameters are ignored. The agent must rely solely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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') and a clear resource, which is not a tautology. However, it does not explain what the template is for or how it differs from sibling tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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. The only note, 'Prompt discarded,' suggests the input is ignored but does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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