copy_to_clipboard

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

The description mentions platform-specific implementations (pbcopy, xclip) and that it copies to system clipboard, but does not detail behavioral aspects like overwriting behavior, size limits, or success/failure states. Without annotations, the description provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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, consisting of two front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core action and platform specifics, the second provides use cases. No superfluous 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, platform, and typical use cases. It could mention return value (e.g., success boolean) but is otherwise complete. The lack of output schema reduces expectations.

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 already describes the 'text' parameter as 'Text to copy to clipboard' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this purpose but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool copies text to the system clipboard, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique clipboard functionality, and provides context by mentioning platform-specific commands and use cases like email content.

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 suggests when to use the tool (copying email content, markdown exports, any text) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, since no sibling tool performs clipboard operations, the guidance is sufficient and clear.

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