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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false and openWorldHint false, so the description's 'Read-only' adds little. It does add genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering and the response envelope ('clipboard_items', 'total', 'has_more'), which matters since there is no output 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the safety trait, then the return shape. No redundant or filler wording.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies ordering, scoping and return-key information an agent needs. The only gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which is small but real.

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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its default, or its 1–100 bounds. The only relevant hint is 'has_more', which vaguely implies pagination, but an agent still cannot learn what leaving limit unset does.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... clipboard captures') plus scope ('caller's', 'cross-device', 'active workspace') and ordering ('newest first'). This clearly separates it from the sibling capture_clipboard write operation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for clipboard data versus capture_clipboard. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, what happens on an empty clipboard, or what the workspace scoping excludes.

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