code_from_clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the action and outcome but omits details about how the clipboard is accessed, potential error cases (e.g., no image in clipboard, unsupported format), and whether any side effects occur. The tool's behavior is partially transparent but lacks completeness.

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 of 7 words, extremely concise. It front-loads the primary action 'Extract code' and adds the key detail 'identifying the language'. While efficient, it is so brief that some context is missed, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the input source (e.g., reads current clipboard content). It does not explicitly state that the tool reads from the clipboard automatically, though the name implies it. Sibling tools provide more context, making this one minimally complete but adequate for basic understanding.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning. Since there are 0 parameters, the description is not required to elaborate. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as it does not mislead or omit necessary parameter information.

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 tool extracts code from a clipboard screenshot and identifies the language. It specifies the verb 'extract', the resource 'code from clipboard screenshot', and the additional outcome 'identifying the language'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'code_from_screenshot' which loads from file, and 'extract_text_from_clipboard' which is for general text.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'code_from_screenshot' or 'analyze_clipboard'. It does not mention prerequisites, like having a valid screenshot in the clipboard, nor does it specify when not to use it. Usage is only implied.

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