app_get_clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: text-only extraction, with an empty string returned when the clipboard is empty or holds non-text data. That edge-case contract is genuinely useful for callers parsing the result, though it doesn't mention any app-attachment prerequisite or whether the clipboard is left untouched.

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?

Two short blocks, purpose first, then the return contract. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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 this is essentially complete, and the tool has an output schema that already covers the return shape, making the "Returns:" block redundant but harmless. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter guidance is present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get text content from the Windows clipboard"), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the many UI/dialog automation siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no other tool in the list touches the clipboard, so the resource itself is the differentiator.

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 gives a usage context ("useful for reading data copied from Altium dialogs or reports") but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as app_read_window, app_read_panel, or app_screenshot for extracting text from the UI. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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