clipboard_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the Android 10+ requirement for the scrcpy path and the fallback behavior, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe the output format or size limitations of clipboard content.

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, zero waste. Every sentence earns its place: first states the primary purpose, second provides the mechanism and version constraint. Well front-loaded with the core purpose in the opening clause.

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?

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, output schema present, and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete for this tool's complexity. It covers mechanism, fallback behavior, and platform constraints. The only minor gap is not describing the return value format, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 100% - the single 'serial' parameter is already documented in the schema ('Device serial number'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. It doesn't clarify whether serial is optional or how it's used to select the device.

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 it gets the current clipboard content from the device using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('clipboard content'). It distinguishes from its sibling clipboard_set by being the read counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The mechanism details (scrcpy vs ADB fallback) add useful context.

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 mentions the mechanism details (scrcpy GET_CLIPBOARD when a session is active, ADB fallback) which implicitly signals it's best used with an active session. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and doesn't mention Android versions where it works on the fallback path. The behavioral context is implied rather than commanded.

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