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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. "Prompt discarded" plus the schema's repeated discard notes clearly communicate that inputs are not retained or used for side effects, which is important for a stateless template tool.

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. It front-loads the core function and then states the key behavior caveat, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the return type and makes clear the prompt is ignored. It could more explicitly state whether all arguments are optional and irrelevant, but the absent required fields and the schema's discard notes largely cover that 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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for every parameter, including discard semantics for most of them, so the schema already covers parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond its general statement that the prompt is discarded.

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 specific verb and resource: "Return a three-step thinking template." It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling list, where no other tool claims to produce a thinking template, and the added "Prompt discarded" narrows its scope.

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 intended use is implied: call this when a generic three-step thinking template is needed and the prompt should not be processed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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