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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Prompt discarded' clearly discloses that the tool ignores the user's prompt, and the schema-level 'discarded after the shape check' notes reinforce that arguments are not used for the output. It does not detail side effects or the exact template content, but the key surprising behavior is disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the 'Prompt discarded' sentence earns its place by adding behaviorally important information that the tool name alone would not convey.

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 minimally viable for calling the tool with zero arguments, but there is no output schema and no explanation of what the returned 'three-step thinking template' actually looks like. The nine optional arguments are well documented in the schema, yet the central return value remains vague, leaving a notable completeness gap.

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 nine parameters have individual schema descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage, so the tool description does not need to repeat parameter details. The statement 'Prompt discarded' broadly signals that parameter values will not affect the result. This is a reasonable baseline-3 case because the schema already carries most of the semantic weight.

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 first sentence states an explicit action and object: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' The second sentence clarifies that the prompt is discarded, which prevents the agent from assuming the tool performs custom reasoning. It is not tautological, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools or describe the template's contents.

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?

The description gives no explicit conditions for when to invoke this tool or when to choose another tool instead. 'Prompt discarded' implies the tool is not customizable, but there is no clear when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives.

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