ask_via_shortcuts_cli

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

With no annotations and only a minimal description, the tool's behavior is completely opaque. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., requires ChatGPT app), or what the return format is. The description provides no behavioral insight.

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 extremely short (9 words) but fails to convey useful information. It prioritizes brevity over substance, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what happens when invoked. It omits key context such as response handling, required app, and typical use case, making it incomplete.

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 'prompt' has a description ('Send to ChatGPT'). The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'An AI agent that utilizes the ChatGPT app for macOS' is vague; it fails to specify the action (e.g., sending a prompt) or the result (e.g., returning a response). It reads like a label rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 or when to avoid it. There are no sibling tools or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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