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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the prompt is discarded, which is useful, but it does not explain what happens with the seven input schema fields, whether any of them affect the output, or what the returned template contains. The schema also contradicts this by providing fields that seem intended for validation or use.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the function, and the second adds a useful behavioral note. It is concise, though slightly too terse to fully support the agent in using the tool correctly.

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 that there are seven input parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not say which parameters are required, how they relate to the template, what the template looks like, or what happens when invalid inputs are provided. The agent is left to infer too much from a schema that appears unrelated to the described 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?

The input schema already gives each parameter a description, many explicitly noting that the value is discarded after a shape check, so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but because the schema carries the semantic detail, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool returns a three-step thinking template, which is a specific verb plus a concrete output resource. It is not a tautology, but it does not explain what the input parameters are for or how the template is constructed, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 alternative tools, and none of the sibling tools are referenced. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints that this is a template generator rather than an analysis tool, but that is not enough to help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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