Read or Write System Clipboard

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description adds substantive context beyond that, namely the mode gate on write and the restriction to plain text / Unicode text only. It does not say what happens to existing clipboard content on write or what read returns, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the read case and the mode constraint inline, with zero redundant wording. Every clause carries either a capability or a precondition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and non-trivial annotations, the description covers both code paths, the data type, and the permission precondition. The only shortfall is that the return payload of a read is never described, even though no output schema exists to fill that in.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns credit above it by attaching mode semantics to each `action` enum value that the schema does not state. It says nothing extra about the `text` parameter (e.g., the 100000-character cap), which the schema already handles.

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 names both operations with concrete verbs and the resource: read plain-text clipboard contents and write Unicode text to the system clipboard, each mapped to an explicit action value. It is fully unambiguous on its own, but it never contrasts itself with siblings such as handy_act or handy_see, leaving differentiation to the distinct resource name.

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?

It gives real conditional guidance: read works under both `full` and `view_only` modes, while write requires `full` control mode, so an agent knows a precondition before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use the tool, which keeps it out of the 5 band.

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