shortcut_inspect

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return ... outline' implies a read-only operation and 'unsigned' connotes a scope limit, adding some value, but it says nothing about error behavior for signed/missing files, or whether it parses or just dumps structure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally clean.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the operation is simple with one param. Still, with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented path parameter, the definition leaves the agent to infer the file-path semantics on its own.

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 0% and the only parameter ('path') is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions what the path points to or what format it takes, so it adds no meaning beyond guessing from the tool name.

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 (return) and resource (indented, human-readable outline of an unsigned .shortcut file). The 'unsigned' qualifier implicitly separates it from shortcut_sign/lint siblings, though no sibling is named.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. The word 'unsigned' hints that signed files are out of scope but never states what to do with them or why one would inspect rather than lint.

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