get_clipboard_text

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 that the tool reads plain text and returns a JSON with truncation metadata or an error message, which is adequate for a read-only operation. No contradictions.

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 plus structured args/returns. No irrelevant information, and the key purpose and parameters are front-loaded.

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 read tool, the description covers the return format and error handling. With an output schema present (though not shown), it is sufficiently complete. Could optionally specify the JSON keys for truncation metadata.

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 schema has zero description coverage for parameters. The description adds 'Maximum number of characters to return' for max_chars, which provides clarity beyond the schema's type and bounds. However, it does not explain truncation metadata or the exact JSON structure.

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 'Read plain text from the macOS clipboard', specifying the verb 'read' and resource 'clipboard'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clipboard_files and set_clipboard_text.

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 the tool is for reading clipboard text, and the context of siblings (e.g., get_clipboard_files for files) provides implicit differentiation. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided.

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