Run a macOS Shortcut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the background execution, lack of input passing, and that it reports only start, not output. It also mentions failure logs to console. However, it doesn't state if the shortcut can be destructive or require permissions. The behavior is reasonably transparent for a run tool, but there is room for more context (e.g., what happens if shortcut doesn't exist, whether it's blocking).

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 concise: three sentences that cover purpose, key constraints, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it doesn't do (no input), and what to do first. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, how to use it correctly (list first), and what to expect (background start, console logs for failures). It could mention error handling for invalid names, but that's a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a basic run tool.

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%: the parameter 'name' is described as 'Shortcut name from hs_list_shortcuts. A substring is accepted.' The description adds that input cannot be passed and that calling hs_list_shortcuts first is recommended, reinforcing the expected value of the parameter. It also clarifies that a substring is acceptable, which adds nuance beyond the schema's simple string type.

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 action: 'Run one of the user's macOS Shortcuts by name.' It specifies the resource (user's macOS Shortcuts) and the verb (run), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting input cannot be passed and that it runs in background. This is distinct from hs_list_shortcuts (listing) and hs_console_tail (viewing logs).

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 explicit guidance: 'Call hs_list_shortcuts first to get exact names.' It also explains the tool's limitations (no input, background execution, failure logging to console) and directs to hs_console_tail for errors. This implicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., use list first, then run; use console tail for debugging).

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