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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return value (copied text, empty string if none) and the important condition that the automation agent must be foregrounded. This is valuable context beyond the bare operation, though it does not discuss edge cases like permission handling or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant detail. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the return behavior and the key prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and the runtime precondition. Minor gaps like why the agent needs to be foregrounded or how to handle failures are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already fully documents the udid parameter with 100% coverageă, so the description adds no additional semantic value about parameters. The baseline of 3 applies per the rubric when schema coverage is high.

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 tool reads clipboard text from an iOS device, using 'Get' as the verb and specifying the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like device_clipboard_get or ios_clipboard_get_hid, but the iOS-specific and pasteboard-focused wording is unambiguous.

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 a clear prerequisite: an active iOS automation session with the agent foregrounded. However, it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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