input.clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one behavioral dependency (get requires u2 support), which is valuable. It does not state that set overwrites the existing clipboard contents, nor what get returns, leaving key mutation semantics implied rather than stated.

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?

A single compact parenthetical line, front-loaded with the resource and split into the two modes. Efficient, though the parenthetical packing makes it slightly dense and it omits the text parameter entirely.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action enum and one dependency but omits the second parameter and any statement of what get returns. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 schema documents neither parameter. The description compensates for action by defining set vs get, but adds nothing about text (format, length, what it supplies for which action), so half the parameter surface is undocumented.

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 names the resource (剪贴板/clipboard) and the two verbs (read/write), and maps each enum value to its operation, so an agent can immediately tell this is the device clipboard accessor. It is clear without reference to any sibling, though no sibling performs this exact function so differentiation is trivial.

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?

It distinguishes the two modes (set=write, get=read) and adds a precondition that get requires u2 support, which is genuine usage information. However, it gives no guidance on when an agent should prefer this over, e.g., ui.set_text or file.push, nor any exclusion or prerequisite for set.

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