run_shortcut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that input is staged to a temporary file and that shortcuts waiting for user interaction will block with a 30-second timeout. These are non-obvious behaviors that are crucial for the agent to anticipate. However, it does not mention potential side effects of running arbitrary shortcuts (e.g., system changes) or error handling, but the disclosed behaviors are valuable and go beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. It packs essential behavioral details (temp file, timeout) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easily scannable.

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 tool with two actions (list/run) and input handling, the description covers the core functionality, input staging, and blocking behavior. There is no output schema, so return values are not explicitly described, but that is not required. It lacks detail on error conditions or permission requirements, but those are not critical for basic invocation. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, and the schema already explains the purpose of 'name' (required for run) and 'input' (staged to temp file). The description reiterates this info without adding new meaning. Since the schema carries the full weight, a 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 clearly states the tool's dual function: listing Apple Shortcuts and running one by name. It specifies the exact resource (Apple Shortcuts) and distinguishes itself from siblings like open_app and run_osascript by naming the specific domain. The verb 'list' and 'run' are concrete and unambiguous, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 implies the use case (interacting with Apple Shortcuts) but does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives. Siblings like run_osascript could perform script execution, but the description does not state any exclusion criteria or comparisons. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it scores a 3.

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