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

Mentions that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, nor does it explain why the other parameters are discarded. Given no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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, consisting of two short sentences. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the core functionality without unnecessary detail.

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 adequate for a simple tool but lacks specification of the template's content or format. Since no output schema is provided, the user is left without details on what the 'three-step thinking template' actually looks like, which could be important for correct usage.

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 9 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but they are all marked as 'discarded' or similar, indicating they are ignored. The descriptions do not clarify why these parameters exist or how they relate to the tool's purpose. In fact, they are misleading because they imply the parameters are used while they are not.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('a three-step thinking template'). The phrase 'Prompt discarded' further clarifies that it does not process the prompt, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools. The description does not differentiate it from alternatives or explain under what conditions it should be selected.

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