appium_mobile_clipboard

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

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint false), the description discloses the two operational modes and the dependency between action and content. It could add side-effect or error context, such as overwriting existing clipboard contents, but it still provides meaningful behavioral clarity.

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?

One compact sentence delivers the verb, resource, scope, platform support, and action-specific behavior without any filler. It is front-loaded and every clause earns 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?

The description plus the fully documented schema is enough for an agent to correctly invoke get or set. Some details are missing, such as return behavior nuances or failure conditions, but the tool is simple and the description covers the essential invocation logic.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and the action/content dependency. The description reinforces these semantics but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Read or set') on a specific resource ('device clipboard as plain text') and names the supported platforms. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on elements, gestures, or device control.

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 gives clear action-level guidance: use 'get' to read and 'set' to write, with content required for 'set'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to compete with clipboard functionality, so the context is sufficient.

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