cigchat_get_shortcut

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose safety and auth. It explicitly states the required OAuth scope ('Manage Flow') and the HTTP method (GET), implying a read operation. However, it does not describe error behavior or whether the shortcut belongs to a specific flow.

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 endpoint and auth requirement, no fluff. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

The tool is simple (one integer parameter, no output schema), and the description gives the endpoint and auth scope. Yet it lacks details on what a shortcut is, how to find IDs, and what the response contains, so it's not fully complete but acceptable for a trivial getter.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter beyond the endpoint path showing 'shortcuts/{id}'. It leaves the meaning of the ID (shortcut ID) implicit, which is insufficient for an agent to know how to obtain it.

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 clearly states the action ('Get a shortcut') and the resource scope ('from the current flow'), with an endpoint confirming it fetches a single shortcut by ID. This distinguishes it from list_shortcuts and create/update/delete sibling tools.

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?

It mentions prerequisites (Manage Flow scope) and the 'current flow' context, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_shortcuts or other shortcut-related tools. No alternative tools are named.

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