Get shortcuts

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It does say the tool 'retrieves a list,' which clarifies the return shape, but it does not describe behavior such as empty results, host validity requirements, sorting, or whether shortcuts have statuses or extra metadata.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but the opening sentence 'Get shortcuts.' is a redundant restatement of the tool name and title. The second sentence earns its place by adding the host-scoped retrieval meaning, but the first adds no unique information.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, this is mostly sufficient: the agent knows what to call, the required hostId is in the schema, and the return concept is described as 'a list of shortcuts.' It would be stronger if it described the shortcut object shape or noted behavior for unknown hosts, but the simplicity of the tool does not demand much more.

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 carries the burden of explaining hostId. It partially does this by saying the list is 'for a specific host,' which maps naturally to the hostId parameter. It does not, however, name the parameter explicitly or explain where to obtain a valid hostId.

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 second sentence clearly states the verb ('Retrieves'), resource ('list of shortcuts'), and scope ('for a specific host'). This distinguishes it from host-level list tools like termix_hosts_get_all_ssh_hosts and from the mutation-oriented termix_hosts_add_shortcut. It loses a point because the first sentence simply repeats the title and 'shortcuts' is never defined beyond the name.

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 'for a specific host' implies the appropriate use case: the agent should call this when it needs shortcuts scoped to one host. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of how this relates to other host-scoped getters such as get_pinned_files or get_recent_files.

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