desktop_paste

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it automatically chooses input mode, selects a shortcut from window class, allows override, and warns that the destination is unverified and that terminals can execute pasted newlines. This goes beyond the schema and provides safety-relevant context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds information, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral risks (unverified destination, terminal newline execution) and the shortcut override. It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the 'shortcut' parameter's role (optional override) and the overall paste behavior, but doesn't detail 'window_id' or 'text' semantics beyond what the schema names. The description adds some meaning but not full parameter-level detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Paste') and resource ('shared CLIPBOARD'), and distinguishes it from semantic typing by noting it's used 'when semantic typing is unavailable.' It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the context makes the tool's role clear.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool ('when semantic typing is unavailable') and notes that terminals can execute pasted newlines, which is a useful caution. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is reasonably clear.

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