Capture text or QR code to clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is non-blocking ('without blocking the MCP request'), that the result is copied locally to the clipboard, and crucially that the content is 'not returned to the model'. These are key safety and privacy-relevant behaviors. However, it does not specify the return value on success, failure, or cancellation, leaving some gaps.

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-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Each statement earns its place: the launch behavior, the non-blocking nature, the local copy, and the privacy note.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the action and that the content is not returned. But it leaves the agent guessing about what the tool actually returns (e.g., a status or nothing) and what happens on user cancellation. This ambiguity could affect how the agent handles the response.

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 schema already provides the enum values 'text' and 'qr'. The description adds meaning by tying 'text' to OCR and 'qr' to a 'sensitive QR value', which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the 'kind' parameter selects between these two modes, and the schema alone would already convey the allowed choices.

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 action: 'Launch Omarchy's interactive region selector' and specifies the resource: capturing text or QR codes to the clipboard. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capture_screenshot by explicitly mentioning OCR and QR values. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as capture_screenshot. It implies an interactive selector that requires user input, but there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over other capture methods or about prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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