boxes.clipboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read/write nature but does not mention requirements like the guest agent must be running, potential side effects of writing, error scenarios, or return format. The mention of 'SPICE guest agent' hints at a dependency but is not elaborated.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core function (read/write) and the resource (clipboard). Though more detail could be added, the current length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. Missing are prerequisites (e.g., guest agent running), error handling, return values, and clarification on how operation and text interact. An agent would have to rely on external knowledge or the schema to call it correctly.

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 only 25% (only nameOrUuid has a description). The description adds no detail about the text, operation, or selection parameters. While 'UTF-8 text' hints at the text parameter's encoding, it doesn't clarify operation enum values or selection constraints, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the schema alone.

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 'Read or write UTF-8 text through the SPICE guest agent clipboard' clearly states the verb (read/write), the resource (clipboard), and the mechanism (SPICE guest agent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like boxes.keyboard or boxes.display by focusing solely on clipboard access, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boxes.keyboard or boxes.drag_drop. The description implies clipboard access but does not give explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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