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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether all input parameters are ignored or what the returned template actually contains, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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-loads the main purpose. 'Prompt discarded' is terse but earns its place as a key behavioral note. It could be slightly clearer, but it avoids unnecessary detail.

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 that returns a simple static template, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. Missing context includes what the three steps are and whether any input affects the output, though 'Prompt discarded' implies the output is static.

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 provides per-parameter descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is effectively high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not improve or detract from the schema's clarity.

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 ('Return a three-step thinking template') and a specific resource, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that perform shape checks or fetch data. It does not fully explain what the template contains, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The only hint is that the prompt is discarded, which is a behavioral warning rather than usage guidance.

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