ghost_clipboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the core behavior: get reads clipboard text and set writes text, with get as the default op. It does not detail side effects such as overwriting existing clipboard contents or whether get returns plain text only, but for a simple clipboard tool the disclosure is reasonably adequate.

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 extremely compact, using a clear shorthand format and front-loading the key concept. Every word earns its place, and the default op is stated clearly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It covers both operations and the default. It does not explicitly state what get returns, though 'read text' implies the clipboard text, and it omits any note about platform limitations, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the enum values and their meanings. The description adds little beyond restating that op=get reads and op=set writes, with get as default. This matches the baseline for a fully schema-documented tool.

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 explicitly states the resource ('clipboard') and the two supported operations with verbs: 'read text' and 'write text'. It is immediately clear what the tool does and the clipboard domain distinguishes it from all listed sibling tools, which concern tabs, browsing, and other actions.

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 explains the op modes and the default behavior, so an agent knows how to request read versus write. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied rather than fully stated.

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