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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine behavioral context: it returns an empty string when the pasteboard is empty and requires an active foregrounded session. This is useful disclosure beyond the structured annotations, though return format nuances (truncation, encoding) are unstated.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by return behavior and prerequisites. No filler, though the parenthetical pasteboard gloss is slightly redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value (copied text, empty string fallback) and the session/foreground requirement. Adequate for a simple one-param read tool, with only minor gaps around error cases.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'udid'. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the clipboard (pasteboard) text') and clarifies the pasteboard concept. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like ios_clipboard_get_hid or device_clipboard_get, leaving the agent to infer which clipboard reader to pick.

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?

Provides prerequisites (active iOS automation session, foregrounded agent) which is real usage context, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the alternative clipboard-reading siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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