ACTION_CLIPBOARD

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the Android 10+ background read restriction and the trap that get can return an empty string while clipboard_success is still true. It also names the three output fields, which the agent would otherwise have to guess. It stops short of permissions behavior for write or failure semantics, so not a 5.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose before the caveats. There is a stray doubled period ('。。') and the output-field list competes with the behavioral warning, but nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming clipboard_content, clipboard_success, and clipboard_error, plus the most important edge case for this platform. For a six-parameter tool with fully documented schema, this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, with only write-side failure behavior left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already carries its own description and the baseline is 3. The description adds that string parameters support ${var} interpolation and that results are returned as a variable-snapshot JSON, which is a modest but real addition over the schema.

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 and resource: 'read from or write to the system clipboard', and the get/set split is explicit. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like ACTION_INPUT_TEXT or ACTION_READ_SCREEN, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 by the 'read or write clipboard' framing and the action enum, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The Android 10+ background caveat is context, not routing guidance.

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