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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Prompt discarded.' hints that inputs may be ignored, but it is vague and fails to mention the shape-checking behavior implied by the schema parameter descriptions. The description does not clarify whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, or what happens with the various input parameters.

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, containing only two short sentences. The main function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a behavioral note. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important 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 seven distinct parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description provides almost no contextual information. It does not explain what the three-step template is, which parameter to use, when to call the tool, or what happens to the inputs beyond the cryptic 'Prompt discarded.' This is inadequate for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool.

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 schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no information about how parameters relate to the returned template. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' does not clarify which parameter might be needed or how any of them influence the output.

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 action: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is a clear verb+resource and not a tautology. While the phrase 'Prompt discarded.' adds slight ambiguity, the core purpose is understandable and the tool is distinct from its siblings.

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 sibling tool, nor does it explain under what circumstances one should invoke 'think-steps'. The intended use case is left entirely to inference.

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