desktop_clipboard_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior of reading clipboard text but lacks details like whether it requires specific permissions, if it only works with text (vs. images), or potential errors (e.g., empty clipboard). The description is accurate but minimal, not fully compensating for the lack of annotations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose ('Read the current clipboard text content'). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It does not explain return values (e.g., format of text, handling of empty clipboard) or behavioral nuances, which could be helpful for an AI agent despite the low complexity.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the absence of parameters without introducing confusion.

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 specific action ('Read') and target resource ('current clipboard text content'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'desktop_clipboard_write' which performs the opposite operation. It precisely communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 usage context by specifying 'clipboard text content,' suggesting it should be used when text data is needed from the clipboard. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites, such as ensuring the clipboard contains text rather than other data types.

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