appium_mobile_clipboard

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, so the description's confirmation of a set/write mode adds modest value. It does contribute platform scope, plain-text semantics, and the behavior that action=get returns current text. However, it does not disclose side effects such as replacing the existing clipboard contents or any platform-specific failure behavior; these would be useful but are not severe omissions.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the mode-specific behavior and the prerequisite condition for set. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-action clipboard tool, the description plus the input schema is sufficient to invoke it correctly: action is required and enum-limited, content is required when setting, and sessionId defaults to the active session. The return for get is described as current text, and no output schema exists. Minor caveats such as clipboard persistence or platform restrictions are not covered, but the tool is simple enough that the current description feels 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds a little extra meaning by linking action=get to returning text and action=set to requiring content, but this mostly restates the schema's enum descriptions rather than providing substantial new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource pair: 'Read or set the device clipboard as plain text.' It also narrows the scope by naming the supported platforms (Android UiAutomator2 / iOS XCUITest) and enumerating the two modes via action=get and action=set, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target elements, keyboards, or sessions.

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?

The description gives explicit mode-level guidance: 'action=get returns current text; action=set requires content.' This tells the agent exactly when each action branch is appropriate and which parameter is needed. It does not name alternative sibling tools for exclusion, but there is no obvious clipboard-specific sibling among the listed tools, so the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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