list_shortcuts

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description need only add context beyond that. It adds that Shortcuts are host-level macOS capabilities usable as a fallback, but says nothing about whether the list can be empty, how shortcuts are identified, or any permissions needed to enumerate them.

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?

Two short sentences, the object of the listing stated first and the usage rationale second. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition of the name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and why one would call it. The main omission is that it does not connect the result to run_shortcut, leaving the agent to infer the follow-up step itself.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter syntax or filtering behavior is claimed or needed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the macOS Shortcuts available to run'), so the agent knows exactly what is enumerated. It also frames the tool as a capability-discovery mechanism, which separates it from the concrete action siblings, though it never names run_shortcut, the obvious follow-up tool.

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?

'Use this to find capabilities Sommus has no tool for' is a clear and actionable when-to-use condition, effectively telling the agent to reach for this tool when no first-class tool covers a task. It stops short of stating the next step (invoke run_shortcut with a discovered name) or any exclusion/dependency conditions.

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