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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the side effect is a visible window on the user's screen, and the shortcut is not executed. This explains why readOnlyHint=false (a UI window opens) even though no data changes. It does not reconcile the destructiveHint=true flag, which reads as stricter than the described behavior, so a minor gap remains.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action and the critical negative constraint ('does NOT run') front-loaded before the input note. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Single required parameter with full schema documentation, an output schema exists, and annotations are present. The description covers what the agent must know: what it does, what it does not do, what it needs as input, and where that input comes from.

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 coverage is 100% and the single property already documents 'Shortcut name or identifier, from shortcuts_list.' The description repeats the same provenance note, adding no new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Opens a shortcut in the Shortcuts app') and immediately scopes it against the sibling it's most likely to be confused with: 'does NOT run the shortcut... use shortcuts_run'. An agent can distinguish view from run without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('so the user can inspect its actions before running it') and names the alternative tool (shortcuts_run) plus the source of valid input (shortcuts_list). All routing decisions are resolved in the description.

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