browser_clipboard_read_image

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 error condition (errors if no image) and the output format (PNG/JPEG), but it does not specify how the image is returned (e.g., base64 string, binary data, or file path). Since there is no output schema, this ambiguity could cause the agent to mishandle the result. A read-only tool with no side effects is implied but not stated.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and an example. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler. It is optimally sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage scenario, and error behavior. However, it omits the exact return representation (PNG/JPEG encoding), which is a gap for an agent needing to process the result. Given the simplicity, this is a minor but notable omission.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not attempt to add parameter semantics because none exist. It correctly omits any param-related text.

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 tool reads an image from the system clipboard and returns it as PNG/JPEG. It includes a concrete example ('Copy image') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_clipboard_read (which likely handles text) and browser_clipboard_write_image (which writes images). The verb and resource are specific.

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?

Provides a clear usage scenario ('after a Copy image action') which helps the agent know when to invoke it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the example and the tool name make the intent clear. This is sufficient context without needing exclusions.

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