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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: results carry stable identifiers, folder filtering supports names/identifiers/"none", and folders:true changes the output entirely. This gives the agent a solid understanding of what the tool does without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before explaining optional behavior. Every clause earns its place, and the filter semantics are conveyed compactly.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter tool, full schema coverage, output schema presence, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, why the identifiers matter, and how to use both parameters. There are no meaningful gaps for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mostly mirrors the schema's parameter explanations, though it adds the useful context that the returned ids are consumed by shortcuts_run and shortcuts_view. This is helpful but does not significantly extend the schema's parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists the user's macOS Shortcuts and provides their stable identifiers, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also differentiates itself from the sibling shortcuts_run and shortcuts_view by explicitly noting that the returned ids are what those tools expect.

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 description gives concrete usage context: use it to obtain stable identifiers for shortcuts_run/shortcuts_view, and how to filter by folder or list folders instead. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the filtering and cross-tool linkage provide clear practical guidance.

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