android_clipboard_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond those annotations by specifying that only plain-text clipboard content is read and that Android permission may restrict access, which is useful behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key permission caveat. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition of schema 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 parameterless read-only operation, the description is mostly complete: it states the resource, the access limitation, and the read-only nature. It does not describe what happens when Android does not permit access, but the low complexity and strong annotations make this a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema reflects that with an empty properties object. With no parameters to document, the description carries no obligation to explain parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('the current plain-text clipboard'), clearly distinguishing it from its write-side sibling android_clipboard_set. The qualifier 'when Android permits it' adds a condition without obscuring the core function.

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 the tool is for reading clipboard text, and the 'when Android permits it' caveat signals that OS permission constraints may apply. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no obvious read-clipboard sibling competing with this tool, so the context is reasonably clear.

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