get_paste_item

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them with output shape per item type, the explicit exclusion of binary data, and the exact error conditions. This is real added disclosure rather than restating annotations.

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?

Purpose, ID sourcing, output format, errors, and the search fallback are packed densely and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. It is on the long side for a single-parameter getter, so it isn't maximally tight, but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and does so by type (text/html/rtf, links, colors, files/images) plus the header fields and error behavior. An agent can call this and interpret the result without further documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining where valid IDs originate and enumerating the invalid cases ('missing, not a number, or matches no existing item'). It stops short of describing ID ranges or reuse semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the full content and metadata of one clipboard history item by its numeric ID'), which cleanly separates it from list/search siblings. The singular 'one ... item' plus the ID keying makes the retrieval-vs-search distinction unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names the sources of the ID (search_clipboard results or add_to_clipboard) and gives a routing rule: 'Use search_clipboard first when the ID is not known.' That is a concrete when-to-use and alternative in one line.

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