clipboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that 'set' replaces the clipboard and explains the adb ASCII limitation motivating non-ASCII use. It does not describe return behavior or side effects, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence. The use-case explanation earns its place by clarifying when the tool is valuable, and the Args section is compact and directly tied to the parameters. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It adds practical context about moving text and handling non-ASCII characters. The only minor gap is not describing what the 'get' action returns, but the output schema covers that.

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 100%, and the schema already explains action as 'get'/'set' and text as the clipboard content. The description's Args section mirrors the schema without adding significant new semantic detail, so the 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 opens with 'Read or replace the phone's clipboard', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like type_text and read_screen by naming the clipboard as the target.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: moving text between the phone and the conversation, and handling non-ASCII text that adb cannot type. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are concrete enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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