browser_clipboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals that a write mode exists (implying clipboard mutation/overwrite) but says nothing about permissions, whether the prior clipboard contents are lost on write, or what a read returns (plain text? empty if none?).

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 efficient sentence with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 a mutating mode, zero annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. An agent has no information about return values, failure modes, or the effect of a write on existing clipboard content.

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 50%: 'text' is described in the schema, but 'action' has an enum with no description. The description's phrase 'read or write' loosely maps to the action values, but it adds no format, default, or return-syntax meaning beyond what the schema already shows. Baseline 3 for a partially documented two-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb pair (read/write) and a specific resource (system clipboard), which is enough for an agent to understand the tool's function. It does not need sibling differentiation because no other tool in the list touches the clipboard, but it also does not mention the default mode or dual nature in any operative way.

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 guidance on when to choose read vs write, no mention that 'action' defaults to 'read', and no prerequisites or alternatives named. The agent must infer the mode selection entirely from the schema.

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