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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states that the prompt is discarded, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not clarify whether the output is always identical, what the template contains, or if there are any side effects. It is minimal but not misleading.

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: two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action and includes the essential 'Prompt discarded' detail. It is efficient, though it could arguably be longer to provide more context.

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 tool has many parameters but all are optional and discarded, so the simplicity is justified. However, the description does not specify what the three-step template looks like or its format, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on the returned template would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema fully documents all nine parameters, each explicitly noting it is discarded. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 clear action and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any particular one. The verb 'return' and the resource 'three-step thinking template' make the purpose understandable.

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 description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The 'Prompt discarded' line hints that input is irrelevant, but it does not explain scenarios for invoking the tool or when to avoid it.

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