shortcut_sign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the macOS CLI dependency and signing purpose, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, overwrite behavior for output_path, or what happens to the input file.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds relevant context without waste.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It leaves key behavioral and parameter details unexplained, so an agent would need to infer how to invoke it correctly.

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 only names two mode values ('anyone | people-who-know-me') and does not explain the required path parameter or the output_path parameter, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: sign a .shortcut using the macOS shortcuts CLI, with a clear purpose of enabling iOS import. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like shortcut_submit or shortcut_publish, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The phrase 'so iOS can import it' implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The mode options are named but not explained in terms of usage conditions.

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