read_clipboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Read' and does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, what it returns, whether permissions are required, or how it handles an empty or non-text clipboard. The word 'Read' weakly implies no side effects, but this is not made explicit.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no unnecessary text, and the structure is optimally concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately states the function. It does not mention return format or edge cases, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add meaning to parameters. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 because there is no parameter documentation burden.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('current clipboard text content'), which clearly identifies the operation. It is naturally distinct from siblings like write_clipboard and other action-oriented tools like left_click or type, so an agent can correctly tell it apart.

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 intended use is implied by the description: call this tool when you need the text currently in the clipboard. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites like clipboard permissions or empty clipboard handling.

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