clipboard_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about pagination ('Follow next_start') and the starting row, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe the matching semantics (e.g., substring vs regex) or ordering, though the schema partially covers start.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides a necessary pagination instruction without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema existing, the description is minimally viable. It explains the search action and pagination, but leaves gaps: no explanation of search matching behavior, the meaning of 'from a row' relative to the start parameter, or the role of the tab parameter. Given the tool has 5 parameters, the description is somewhat lacking.

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 only 20% (only 'start' has a description), so the description must compensate but does not. It does not explain what 'query' should contain, how 'count' affects results, or what 'tab' and 'case_sensitive' do. The phrase 'return matching items' implies query semantics but provides no specifics, leaving users to infer from parameter names.

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 the action: 'Search CopyQ text history from a row and return matching items.' It specifies a distinct verb ('Search') and resource ('CopyQ text history'), and the scope of starting from a row. This differentiates it from siblings like clipboard_read (reading a specific item) and clipboard_tabs (listing tabs).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; there is no mention of clipboard_read or clipboard_tabs. The pagination note 'Follow next_start' gives a usage tip for continuing searches, but does not address when to choose this tool over others.

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