clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no return format for reads, no explanation of how a write is sourced given zero input parameters, no permission or security implications despite clipboard access being sensitive, and no note on whether it affects the system clipboard or a page-scoped one.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, no parameters, and security-sensitive clipboard access, the description is far too thin. It leaves the read/write dispatch, the write data source, and the return value entirely unspecified.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule; however, the description implies a read/write mode selection that the schema does not expose, creating an unresolved mismatch rather than adding meaning. The description therefore neither documents nor compensates for the absent mode selector.

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 names the resource (clipboard) and the scope (bound tab), and gives both possible verbs (read/write). However, it conflates two distinct operations into one tool without saying how the agent selects between them, and the empty schema offers no mode switch. An agent knows what the tool touches but not which action it will perform.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as read_text, read_value, type_text, or fill_form, all of which touch page content. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of when a read versus a write is triggered.

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