glass_clipboard_get

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value beyond that by disclosing edge cases: "" if empty and "Unsupported where the backend can't provide clipboard access." It also explains the ctrl+a/c Ctrl+c workflow as an implementation detail. No contradiction with readOnlyHint.

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 primary purpose, then the secondary use case. Every clause contributes information: return value, empty-handling, workflow hint, OCR comparison, and failure mode. No waste.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it returns (text), empty case, and the Unsupported state. It also ties into the broader tool ecosystem with the glass_do reference, making it complete for an agent to call 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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description cannot add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description doesn't introduce any ambiguity about inputs.

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 clear verb ("Read") and resource ("the app's clipboard"), and specifies the return type (text) and empty-string behavior. It also differentiates from siblings like glass_clipboard_set by framing itself as the read counterpart and adding a specific text-extraction use case.

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 a concrete usage scenario: "the cheap text-extraction path" using glass_do ctrl+a then ctrl+c, and explicitly compares to OCR ("beats OCR for selectable text"). It lacks explicit exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance, hence not a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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