browser_clipboard_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens when the clipboard is empty, contains non-text content, or requires user permissions in the browser 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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides practical usage guidance without redundancy.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool reads and when to use it. It could slightly improve by noting the return value explicitly (e.g., 'returns the clipboard text'), but 'Read text from the system clipboard' sufficiently implies the output.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter documentation, but none is needed; the invocation is fully determined by the schema.

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 states a specific operation ('Read text') and a precise resource ('the system clipboard'), and the qualifier 'text' distinguishes it from sibling tool browser_clipboard_read_image. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from nearby clipboard tools.

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 clear, concrete usage contexts: after a page places text on the clipboard via a copy button, or when moving data between pages and apps. It lacks an explicit exclusion statement (e.g., 'use browser_clipboard_read_image for images'), but the text-focused wording and sibling naming make the intended use clear.

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