Read Clipboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful 'plain text' limitation, but it does not mention behavior when the clipboard holds non-text data or is empty. With annotations carrying most of the behavioral burden, 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded, grammatically complete sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it fully states the tool's function.

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 operation with annotations covering safety, the description is fully sufficient. There is no output schema, but for a simple clipboard-text read the description explains the behavior adequately; nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. With schema coverage at 100% and no params to document, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 specific verb ('read') and resource ('system clipboard'), and further narrows the scope to 'plain text'. This clearly distinguishes it from write_clipboard and other sibling tools without needing to open schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs the current clipboard text. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to write_clipboard as the alternative for setting clipboard content, leaving that distinction implicit.

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