clipboard

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that reading an image returns base64 PNG, but it does not describe error handling, side effects of writing (e.g., overwriting), or behavior when the clipboard contains unsupported content. This is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the primary read/write functionality and adding the image format detail in the second sentence. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains both operations and the image return format, but leaves a minor gap by not indicating what happens on write or whether text returns are plain strings. Overall, it's adequate for the tool's scope.

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%, with both 'action' and 'text' parameters already having descriptive explanations. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline score of 3.

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 the tool's function with specific verbs: 'Read' and 'write', and identifies the resource as the current Windows clipboard. It further distinguishes behavior for text vs. image content, including the base64 PNG format for images, making it distinct from any sibling tool.

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?

While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever clipboard access is needed for reading or writing text/images. The sibling tools are unrelated to clipboard operations, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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