clipboard_read_raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds: returns content as-is without parsing, lists supported MIME types (including those with non-text prefixes), and states binary types are rejected. This goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear first line stating purpose and usage recommendation, followed by details on behavior and examples. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but very effective.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, annotations, and an output schema (context signals indicate presence), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, supported types, args, return value, and error behavior. No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema has only a name and default for mime_type, with 0% description coverage. The tool description provides a full argument description: explains what it is, gives common values like 'text/plain', 'text/html', etc., and clarifies supported types. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 it reads raw clipboard content for a specific MIME format, explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings: 'Diagnostic tool only — use clipboard_paste instead for normal clipboard access.' It also mentions clipboard_list_formats for discovering available types, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instructions ('Diagnostic tool only'), recommends alternative (clipboard_paste), and advises using clipboard_list_formats first. This gives clear context and exclusion criteria.

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