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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not describe the output contents or any edge cases, but the main side-effect-free behavior is clear.

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 primary action is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat is stated separately. Every word earns its place.

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 too thin for a tool with seven unrelated optional-looking parameters and no output schema. It does not explain whether any parameter is required, what the 'thinking template' contains, or whether output ever varies. An agent cannot confidently decide what arguments to pass or what to expect back.

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 seven parameters already have individual descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The tool-level statement 'Prompt discarded' adds useful context that the parameter values are irrelevant, but it does not deepen the meaning of any specific parameter beyond what the schema says.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' The added 'Prompt discarded' clarifies that this is a generic, input-independent tool. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are content-specific validators and utilities.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling validators. 'Prompt discarded' implies the input does not matter, but the description never states a scenario, condition, or alternative.

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