auto_paste_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only status check ('check current status') but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe the return format. It adds the enabled/disabled detail, but could be more explicit about the operation being non-destructive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no 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?

For a simple status check with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies what is being checked and the possible states. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return value format, which is a minor gap.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required for the status check.

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's purpose: checking the current status of auto-paste detection as enabled or disabled. The verb 'check' plus the specific resource 'status of auto-paste detection' distinguishes it from sibling tools that enable, disable, or paste.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to know whether auto-paste is enabled or disabled. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools (enable/disable/paste) are conceptually distinct, making the usage context obvious.

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