tool_clipboard_read

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: non-text clipboard content reports empty text rather than failing. This goes beyond the basic read-only annotation and helps the agent anticipate edge cases. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., clipboard access permissions) or whether the clipboard is cleared after reading, but for a read operation this is minor.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Read the current clipboard text'), then adds the read-only note and the edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete. It states what it does, the read-only nature, and the behavior for non-text content. The only minor gap is not describing the exact return format (e.g., whether it returns a string or an object), but the output schema exists and likely covers that. The description is sufficient for an agent 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing undocumented. The description adds value by clarifying the return behavior for non-text content, which is more useful than parameter details.

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 reads the current clipboard text, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current clipboard text'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool_clipboard_write by focusing on reading rather than writing. The behavior for non-text content is explicitly described, which further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs to retrieve the current clipboard text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list includes tool_clipboard_write, and the read-only nature is clear. The context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over writing to the clipboard.

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