glass_clipboard_get

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns empty string if clipboard is empty and 'Unsupported' if the backend cannot provide access, adding transparency beyond a simple 'read clipboard'.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first front-loads the primary function, and the second adds valuable context for a special use case and error handling, with no wasted words.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers the tool's purpose, normal return, edge cases (empty, unsupported), and a specific usage hint, making it fully complete for agent invocation.

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 baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on behavior.

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 explicitly states it reads the app's clipboard as text, including empty string behavior, and distinguishes it from the sibling 'glass_clipboard_set' by specifying 'get' and the cheap text-extraction path.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use as a cheap text-extraction path after glass_do ctrl+a ctrl+c, noting it beats OCR for selectable text. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the guidance is helpful for a 0-param tool.

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