shortcuts_list

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds context annotations cannot supply: it goes through the public shortcuts CLI and requires no permissions ('permissions: none'), which tells the agent there is no auth gate or consent prompt. It does not mention scope limits such as built-in vs user shortcuts beyond the 'user-installed' qualifier.

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?

One sentence carries the purpose, with version and permission metadata in a compact bracketed tag. Front-loaded, no filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the tool is parameterless and simple. Version and permission context are supplied; the only minor gap is the absence of any hint about ordering or how names relate to the sibling shortcuts_run.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema-based baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly makes no parameter claims that would conflict with the empty schema.

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+resource: 'Discover names of user-installed Apple Shortcuts'. It is clear what the tool returns (names, not execution), which implicitly separates it from shortcuts_run, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before shortcuts_run, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions. No alternative is named.

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