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

The description adds the important behavioral guarantee that the shortcut is not executed, which is not fully captured by the annotations. It also clarifies that the tool opens the app for inspection, adding useful context beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 carry all essential information: what it does, what it does not do, and where the input comes from. There is no filler or repetition of structured metadata.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the action, the non-action, the input source, and the relationship to shortcuts_run. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the single parameter's schema already says 'Shortcut name or identifier, from shortcuts_list.' The tool description restates that source but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Opens a shortcut in the Shortcuts app so the user can inspect its actions.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from shortcuts_run by stating 'Does NOT run the shortcut,' making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It clearly positions this tool as the pre-run inspection step, names the sibling shortcuts_run as the running alternative, and tells the agent the accepted input source is shortcuts_list. This gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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