shortcut.run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It offers one meaningful caveat ('does not return full action array'), but fails to describe execution side effects, required permissions, or the actual return format. This is insufficient for a run-type tool that likely triggers actions in the environment.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the core functionality and a key limitation. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, return value details, error conditions, and usage context. The single sentence does not adequately cover the tool's complexity or pitfalls.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives partial meaning to shortcut_id by mentioning 'stable ID/name', but leaves params, window, and confirm_token unexplained. Since there are 4 parameters and only one is hinted at, the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 runs a verified shortcut by stable ID/name, using the verb 'run' and resource 'shortcut'. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral note about not returning the full action array, which helps separate it from sibling tools like computer.invoke or computer.act. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or compare with 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase '已验证 shortcut' (verified shortcut) implies a condition, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. The agent is left without clear decision criteria.

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