clipboard_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions Explorer-specific file path handling but does not disclose side effects (e.g., clearing the clipboard), permissions, or what operations return. The description leaves out whether 'read' vs 'paste' have different behavioral implications.

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 a single sentence listing all operations without filler. It is efficient and front-loads the main purpose. Slightly dense but every phrase carries meaning; no redundant wording.

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 multi-operation tool with no output schema, the description does not explain return values, side effects, or distinct behavior of each operation. Ambiguity between 'read' and 'paste' and lack of detail on file path formatting (beyond Explorer) leaves gaps for correct invocation. The description is a summary, not a complete usage guide.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'for Explorer' hints at the files parameter's purpose) but does not go beyond what the schema already provides for the 'text' and 'files' parameters. The operation enum is well-described in the schema, so the description adds limited new meaning.

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 'System clipboard operations' and enumerates specific capabilities: copy text, read/paste content, check type, clear, and handle file paths. It is unambiguous about the tool's resource (system clipboard) and distinguishes it from sibling file/process tools.

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?

Usage is implied: if clipboard access is needed, this is the tool. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, and none of the sibling tools appear to overlap with clipboard functionality. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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