list_shortcuts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing beyond the basic operation: no output format, pagination, sorting, authorization requirements, or side effects. This is minimal even for a read-only list operation.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the operation without filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a functionally adequate description for a low-complexity list tool with fully described parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not disclose response shape or behavioral details such as whether shortcuts are returned in any particular order or limited by pagination. It meets the minimum viable standard but leaves clear gaps.

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 100%, with both 'user' and 'instance' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics; its 'for a user' phrasing merely restates the 'user' parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('shortcuts') with an explicit scope ('for a user'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_memos, list_tags, and list_instances without needing extra context.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The only usage signal is implicit in the tool name and the simple phrasing, which is not enough to help an agent decide between related listing tools.

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