Check clipboard setup

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

Goes beyond the annotations by naming the concrete behaviors the diagnosis inspects and by disclosing that test_write=true performs a write/read/clear round-trip rather than a pure read. No mention of error modes, permission requirements, or what the diagnostic report contains, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the one conditional behavior. Every clause carries information (the four inspected areas, the opt-in write path) and nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation detail beyond the safety hints, the description should carry more of the result contract – what the diagnostic actually reports or what a failing check looks like. It names the inspected inputs but leaves the output shape entirely unstated.

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 defines test_write as 'Write/read/clear a test string to verify the pipeline end-to-end'. The description restates that as a 'harmless clipboard round-trip', adding only the reassurance of harmlessness – a marginal increment over the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb (diagnose) and a narrow resource (the clipboard integration for caught verification codes), then enumerates exactly what is inspected: platform tools, concealed-write support, [settings.verification] values, and the watcher prerequisite. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like configure_verification or check_notification_setup.

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?

Usage is only implied – the agent can infer this is the pre-flight/repair check for verification-code capture, and the description explains what test_write=true does, but it never says when to reach for this versus configure_verification or get_verification_code, nor any prerequisite condition for running it.

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