clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: non-text returns empty string, write verifies via byte-by-byte comparison, and lists specific failure codes and causes (third-party managers, DLP, RDP, etc.). It also describes recovery actions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, examples, caveats), but it is slightly verbose. However, every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core actions.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (text for read, no explicit return for write but implies a result object with code). It covers error conditions, edge cases, and provides examples. No gaps remain.

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%, but the description adds critical meaning: it explains the 'action' enum values in detail (read vs write behavior), the 'text' parameter's role in write, and the 'include' parameter's response-shaping effect. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 it reads or writes the Windows clipboard, with specific verb-resource pairs: 'action='read' returns current text content' and 'action='write' replaces clipboard with given text'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., keyboard, mouse) by focusing on clipboard operations.

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 says when to use read vs write, provides recovery strategies (retry or fallback to keyboard action), and explains caveats like non-text payloads and write verification failures. It gives clear context for when-not-to-use and alternatives.

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