Read the Android clipboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations lack: the dependency on the termux-api package and companion app, i.e. the condition under which the call fails. It stops short of describing the empty-clipboard case or error payload.

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, zero waste: the action first, the prerequisite second. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-rich tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it depends on. The only remaining gap is what the return looks like when the clipboard is empty or the dependency is missing, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 by rule. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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 (return) and resource (current Android clipboard text), and the direction of the operation is unambiguous against the sibling clipboard_set. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 description gives clear context for invocation via the stated prerequisite (termux-api package + Termux:API app), which is the main precondition an agent must check. It does not explicitly name clipboard_set as the alternative for writing, but the read/write split is self-evident from name and verb.

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