search_clipboard

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

Without annotations, the description declares the tool as 'pure read' and mentions that sensitive entries are excluded from the index, referencing get_clipboard_history for details. While this covers key behavioral traits, additional info on performance or pagination would enhance transparency.

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 concise with clear section headers (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, BEHAVIOR, PARAMETERS). Every sentence adds value and the total length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the output schema exists (though not shown), the description specifies return fields (timestamp, snippet, source application) and covers the key constraint (text-only, sensitive exclusion). For a search tool, this is complete and actionable.

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 0% description coverage, so the description adds critical meaning: query can be a 'substring or FTS expression', is required and non-empty; limit specifies 'max results', range '1-100', and default 20. This goes well beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool performs 'Full-text search over the clipboard history' and lists the returned fields (timestamp, snippet, source application). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_clipboard_history and search_history.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT FOR' sections with examples (e.g., 'find that thing I copied about X', 'did I copy the bug ID'), and clarifies that only text entries are indexed, effectively guiding the agent on appropriate use cases.

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