cigchat_list_shortcuts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the required OAuth scope and the HTTP method, but does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or confirm the read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get'. This is adequate 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 conveys the action, resource, context, endpoint, and authentication requirement. Every element is functional, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 straightforward list operation with a fully described schema and clear endpoint, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit return format or pagination details, but those are inferable from the endpoint and parameters. A slightly richer note on response structure would make it fully 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (name, page, limit). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('shortcuts'), and the contextual scope ('current flow'). It also includes the exact HTTP endpoint, which fully disambiguates it from sibling list tools like list_tags or get_shortcut.

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 description provides a clear context indicator ('current flow') and a critical prerequisite ('Requires the Manage Flow scope'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_shortcut or flow_create_shortcut, but the purpose is specific enough to guide usage.

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