clipboard.clear

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important scope constraint — only the in-process clipboard is affected, not the system clipboard — but says nothing about irreversibility, whether an undo exists, or whether the cleared contents are returned or discarded.

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?

A single four-word sentence with the action and the target front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 no-argument, no-output utility this covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no output schema the description is the only place a caller could learn about irreversibility or return behavior, and it omits both.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The empty schema with additionalProperties: false is consistent with the description's no-argument framing.

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?

Specific verb ('Empty') plus a precise resource ('the in-process clipboard'), so the agent knows exactly what is removed. The 'in-process' qualifier implicitly separates it from OS-level clipboard operations and from the sibling clipboard.peek, though it doesn't name that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — call it when you want the clipboard emptied — but there is no statement of when this is preferable to alternatives or what a caller should do first. For a zero-parameter utility tool that is largely self-evident, an implied-usage score is appropriate.

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