run_shortcut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the basic action without mentioning side effects (shortcuts can perform arbitrary operations), whether the tool waits for completion, or what happens if the shortcut fails. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes user-defined code.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundant information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior, error handling, and the role of the optional input. It does none of these, leaving the agent with incomplete information about a tool that executes arbitrary shortcuts.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain 'name' and 'input'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by name', which is redundant with the schema. The optional 'input' parameter is not mentioned, but the baseline of 3 applies due to complete schema coverage.

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 verb 'Runs' with the resource 'Apple/Siri Shortcut by name', making the tool's purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool list_shortcuts, which only lists shortcuts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not clarify whether this generic shortcut runner should be preferred over dedicated tools like run_health_audit or run_disk_cleanup, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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