shortcuts_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a pure read/list operation with no arguments, but says nothing about macOS Shortcuts/automation permissions, whether the list is filtered or scoped, or how many items come back. The truncation removes any further disclosure the author may have written.

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 visible text is front-loaded with the verb+resource and free of padding, but it is cut off mid-clause, leaving an incomplete definition. As presented it is short at the cost of being unfinished rather than tight.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it covers just the purpose plus the identifier field. For a zero-argument read tool across a crowded sibling list, it is adequate but leaves the return shape and permission context unexplained.

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, so there is nothing for the schema or description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not add spurious parameter-like guidance.

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 and resource ('Lists the user's macOS Shortcuts (Atajos)') and names the key payload field (the stable identifier). It also points at the sibling tools that consume those ids. It does not fully disambiguate from shortcuts_view, which the truncated tail may have been intended to do.

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 mention of the identifier 'the id shortcuts_run and short...' implies this is the discovery step before run/view, which is useful routing, but no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite statement survives in the visible text.

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