mac_clipboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes that only text is supported, images/files appear as names, and there is no clipboard history. It also mentions the underlying pbpaste/pbcopy mechanism, adding useful context beyond the basic operation.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured with clear sections for examples and limitations. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 complete. It covers all actions, example usage, and key limitations. It does not explicitly describe return values or error cases, but those are simple enough not to require explanation. A slight gap is the absence of permission requirements, but this is not critical.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (action with enum, text with conditional requirement). The description adds examples showing correct usage but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with specific actions (read/write/clear) on the macOS clipboard, and the text-only constraint distinguishes it from any potential clipboard-related tools. Sibling tools like mac_run and mac_screenshot are unrelated, so there is no ambiguity.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool via examples and limitations (text-only, no history). It implicitly communicates when not to use it (e.g., for images or clipboard history), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusionary guidance.

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