clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but provides almost none. It says read or write, but does not state that writing replaces clipboard contents, whether permissions are needed, what happens on empty clipboard reads, or how failures are reported.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical and no wasted wording. It is concise and easy to scan.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this description is too sparse. It leaves an agent without enough information to invoke set safely or understand the get/set parameter relationship.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only implies read/write and clipboard text. It does not clarify that op defaults to get, that text is needed for set, or how text behaves when op is get.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource pair: read or write clipboard text. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the parenthetical contrast with selecting/copying on screen makes the basic purpose distinguishable.

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 parenthetical 'cheaper than selecting/copying on screen' provides a clear comparative reason to choose this tool over screen-based copying. It still lacks explicit when-not guidance or named sibling alternatives, so it is not fully complete.

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