clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not say that setting overwrites existing clipboard contents (a destructive side effect), whether the read returns a string, what happens with large payloads, or whether platform permissions are required.

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?

One short sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is terse to the point of under-specification; the brevity buys nothing because the agent still has to guess at mode semantics and return behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a read returns (clipboard text, empty string, error). It also omits overwrite behavior for set mode, leaving key facts about a simple but two-mode tool unstated.

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 coverage is 0% for the single `set` parameter, so the schema gives no meaning. The description partially compensates by indicating that `set` is the value to write and that its absence triggers a read, which is useful but expressed too obliquely to fully document the parameter.

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 names the resource (clipboard) and two modes (read, set), so the core purpose is inferable. But 'or `set` it' is cryptic phrasing that leaves the dual-mode nature ambiguous rather than stating plainly that omitting the argument reads and supplying it writes.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use read mode versus set mode, no prerequisites, and no mention of sibling tools like `type` or `press` that might be combined with it. The mode switch is only hinted at through the word 'or'.

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