shortcut_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a safe read-only reference lookup and lists topics, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or rate limits. For a low-risk docs tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the topic list follows immediately.

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?

With one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly by listing topics. It stops short of explaining how topics map to results or when to prefer this over siblings, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 does enumerate valid topic values (spec, pitfalls, lint-rules, health-types, templates, library, ios27), which is useful, but it does not explain what each topic returns or note the default value beyond what the schema shows.

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 states it provides documentation for building shortcuts and enumerates topic areas, making the resource clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like shortcut_llm_prompt or shortcut_build, but the topic list gives enough specificity to distinguish a reference lookup.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shortcut_llm_prompt or shortcut_build. The phrase 'Docs for building shortcuts' implies a reference use case, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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