Computer Clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read edge case (empty string when clipboard is empty), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states that write silently overwrites existing clipboard contents, nor any permission, focus, or platform constraints for a system-level mutation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb/resource and then the mode semantics. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still usefully notes the empty-clipboard case. For a 2-parameter, unannotated mutation tool the essentials are covered, though the overwrite behavior of write is a meaningful omission.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the allowed `action` values (read|write) that the schema types only as a bare string, and ties `text` to the write case. It stops short of saying `text` is ignored or required on write, or what happens if text is omitted.

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 pair and resource: 'Read or write the system clipboard'. The two modes are enumerated inline (action read|write), so an agent knows exactly the capability offered. No sibling tool in the list operates on the clipboard, so no differentiation burden applies.

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 explains what each mode does ('write copies `text`; read returns current clipboard content'), which implies when to pick each. It gives no explicit selection guidance against alternatives (e.g., using computer_type versus clipboard paste) and no preconditions such as requiring focus or a non-headless session.

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