GhostDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only behavior ('Read') but doesn't mention potential limitations like platform-specific clipboard access, permissions required, or data format returned. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose clearly, but with no annotations and an output schema present, it could benefit from mentioning what the output contains (e.g., text format) to fully compensate for the lack of behavioral details.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no parameters are required, earning a baseline score for this scenario.

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 resource ('current clipboard text'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clipboard_set. It precisely defines 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 (when clipboard content is needed) but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like screen_shot or other clipboard-related operations. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit comparison guidance.

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