astrax_portapapeles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the write operation *replaces* (overwrites) existing clipboard content, which is a destructive trait, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or invalid `operacion` values.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the two modes, with zero redundant or filler text.

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 an output schema already covering the return value, the description covers the essential mode semantics and the schema's missing enum. Only error/invalid-operation behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the schema has no enum for `operacion`, so the description does real work by enumerating the valid values ("leer"/"escribir") and clarifying that `texto` is the replacement payload. It still omits the default-empty behavior of `texto` and read-mode handling.

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 (clipboard) and the two distinct operations it supports, disclosing exactly what read and write do. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like astrax_escribir or astrax_tecla.

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 two modes: read to retrieve content, write to replace it with `texto`. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any statement about when to prefer this over related sibling tools.

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