GhostDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a write operation ('Write text to the clipboard'), which implies mutation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects, or error conditions. It adds some context about integration with key_press, but lacks details on clipboard overwriting or system dependencies.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds practical usage context, making every word earn its place.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action and basic usage, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or system-specific notes, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'text' implicitly but doesn't explain the parameter's purpose, constraints, or format beyond what the schema's title ('Text') provides. The description adds minimal value over the schema, meeting the baseline for low coverage without fully compensating.

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 ('Write text to the clipboard') and identifies the resource ('clipboard'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clipboard_get (which reads) and other UI automation tools. It provides a complete verb+resource statement with no 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 includes explicit guidance on when to use this tool by mentioning 'Use with key_press("ctrl+v") to paste,' which implies it's part of a workflow for pasting operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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