eda_sys_shortcut_key_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (including undefined), the limitation of not retrieving system shortcuts, the requirement to be in an extension context, and the error thrown in standalone scripts. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only getter, though it doesn't mention permissions or side effects (which are likely none).

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 well-structured with a signature, purpose, remarks, and notes. It is front-loaded with the signature and purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'returns' line repeats the purpose), but overall it is concise and organized for quick scanning.

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?

The description covers essential operational context: extension-only, cannot access system shortcuts, error behavior, and return type. The main gap is the ID concatenation format, which is critical for correct invocation. Without this detail, an agent may construct the args incorrectly. The absence of an output schema means the return structure is only partially described, but the signature provides the type.

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 has 100% coverage for args and windowId, but the descriptions are generic. The tool description mentions 'id: string' and says to concatenate the ID according to format, but does not specify the actual format or how to map the id into the args array. This adds marginal value over the schema, which already describes the array structure, but leaves ambiguity about the ID format.

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 states it retrieves shortcut key data by ID, and the signature clarifies the return type. It also notes that it cannot fetch system shortcut data, which helps differentiate from related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like eda_sys_shortcut_key_get_all or eda_sys_shortcut_key_get_shortcut_keys, so the distinction is implied rather than explicit.

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 context: it works only in extensions, cannot get system shortcuts, and throws in standalone scripts. It implies usage when you have a specific extension shortcut ID, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide a 'when not to use' clause. No direct comparison to sibling getter tools.

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