Apple List Shortcuts For Capability

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'likely' qualifier, which signals fuzzy/ranking behavior rather than exact matches — a useful behavioral nuance. It does not disclose match criteria, ordering, or no-match behavior, so the added context is modest 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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded ('List likely shortcuts') followed by the purpose clause. No filler or repetition of the schema. The purpose clause is slightly long but earns its place by explaining why the tool exists.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or read-only behavior. The core intent and trigger condition are stated. Remaining gaps: the expected format of a 'capability' query is unspecified, and no guidance differentiates this from apple_suggest_shortcuts or shortcuts_list_shortcuts. Adequate but not complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's bare parameter titles. 'Requested capability' adds real meaning to the query parameter, indicating it should be a natural-language capability description. The limit parameter remains undocumented, though its default and name make its role mostly self-evident. Compensation is partial, not complete.

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+resource ('List likely shortcuts') and a clear purpose: using Shortcuts as a bridge when native coverage is missing. It inherently differentiates from generic tools like shortcuts_list_shortcuts, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling apple_suggest_shortcuts, so it falls just 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 'when native coverage is missing' provides an explicit condition for using this tool, giving the agent a trigger context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so routing between this and apple_suggest_shortcuts or shortcuts_list_shortcuts is left to inference.

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