List Shortcuts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds the scope 'on this Mac' which is useful context. However, it does not disclose details like whether the list is sorted, whether it includes hidden shortcuts, or any rate limits. Given annotations, the bar is lower, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is an excellent example of economy of language.

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 list tool with no parameters, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what is returned (all shortcuts) and the context (this Mac). There is no missing information that would hinder usage.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not add parameter information because none exists, which is acceptable. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 tool's action (list) and resource (Siri Shortcuts on this Mac). It is specific and distinct from siblings like run_shortcut, which runs a shortcut rather than listing them. The scope 'on this Mac' adds useful 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that run_shortcut is needed to execute shortcuts, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. A user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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