clipboard_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: plain-text-only format limitation, 'current' versus history scope, and 'permissions: none' as an auth requirement.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope constraint. The bracketed '[v1.0.0; permissions: none]' tag is partly useful (permissions) but the version string is filler that slightly dilutes the signal.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Scope, format limitation, and auth needs are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds no misleading parameter hints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read current plain-text clipboard') and narrows scope with 'only', which separates it from history-import behavior. It does not name the sibling clipboard_write, so the differentiation is scope-based rather than explicit routing.

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?

'Does not import Raycast Clipboard History' is an effective when-not boundary that tells the agent this tool is not the path for history retrieval. There is no positive statement of when to prefer it over alternatives such as system_get_selected_text, so the guidance stops just short of full routing.

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