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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Prompt discarded' and per-parameter notes like 'discarded after the shape check,' but it fails to explain that the tool always returns the same template regardless of input, that it has no side effects, or that it performs no real processing. The phrase 'discarded' is vague and does not clarify whether validation occurs or if the tool is a no-op.

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, using a single sentence to state the core function and input handling. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits essential context, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not describe the returned template's structure or content. It also does not explain why nine optional parameters exist if they are all discarded, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's actual utility. The tool is simple, but the description fails to fully cover what an agent needs to know to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter's description already indicates it is discarded or used only for a shape check. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate further.

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 the tool's function: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' The additional note 'Prompt discarded' clarifies that input is ignored, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific actions. The verb 'return' and the resource 'three-step thinking template' make 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools. The 'Prompt discarded' hint implies a placeholder role, but there is no explicit instruction for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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