ios_clipboard

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly established. The description adds a small behavioral rationale about reliability but doesn't detail side effects like global clipboard mutation or overwriting existing clipboard content. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a useful rationale. No wasted words and every sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It could explicitly point to ios_type or ios_read_text for comparison, but the clipboard scope is clear enough that nothing critical is missing.

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%, and the schema already explains 'text' and 'action' clearly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read or write the device clipboard.' This is clear and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ios_type or ios_read_text, but the resource ('clipboard') makes the scope evident.

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 provides a concrete usage pointer: writing is faster and more reliable than typing a long string because the keyboard can mangle with autocorrect. This gives the agent a clear reason to choose clipboard writes for long text. It doesn't mention explicit exclusions or alternatives by name, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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