browser_clipboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it says nothing about whether write overwrites existing clipboard content, whether read requires focus/permissions, or what errors can occur. For a system-level side-effecting tool this is a notable gap.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the operation summary in the first sentence and parameter detail following. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but earns its place by supplying the op values.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient, but it omits what read returns, the effect of write on existing clipboard data, and error conditions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 compensate, and it does: it defines op as "read" or "write" (adding the enum the schema lacks) and explains that text is only used when op="write". Minor gaps remain around the read return format, but the core semantics are covered.

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 pair (read/write) and a concrete resource (system clipboard), so the tool's function is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the clipboard resource is unique enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

No guidance on when to use clipboard operations versus alternatives, nor prerequisites such as focus or permissions. The description only restates the two operation modes implied by the parameters.

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