run_shortcut

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful behavioral hint that the effects are open-ended ('covers things with no dedicated tool'), but says nothing about what the shortcut returns, whether it blocks, or how failures surface. Adds some value over annotations, not a lot.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by a compact Args note. No filler, though the Args block adds little beyond restating the single schema property.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and discovery of valid inputs. The remaining gap — what running a shortcut returns or how errors are reported — is modest given the tool's simplicity.

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% (the schema only has a bare 'Name' title), so the description carries the burden and does so: it explains that the value is the shortcut's name and routes the agent to list_shortcuts to discover valid values. No format or naming-convention detail beyond that.

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+resource ('Run one of the user's macOS Shortcuts') and adds scope that distinguishes it from the many dedicated siblings: it is the catch-all for actions with no dedicated tool. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the 'no dedicated tool' framing does meaningful routing work.

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?

Gives a clear use condition (things without a dedicated tool, e.g. Focus modes) and an explicit prerequisite workflow ('call list_shortcuts first if unsure'). No explicit when-not-to-use, but the fallback framing implies it.

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