clear_clipboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation, so the description adds no new behavioral information beyond what the name implies. It does not disclose whether clearing is irreversible, whether it affects clipboard history, or any side effects. Since the description adds no context beyond the structured fields, it scores low.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool that performs one simple action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It doesn't explain return values or side effects, but for a straightforward clipboard clear operation, nothing else an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters and the schema fully covers this (100% coverage). The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document; the description appropriately has nothing to add.

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 uses a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('clipboard contents'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_clipboard and write_clipboard by indicating a mutating action that empties the clipboard. Even without referring to alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that read_clipboard is for retrieving contents or write_clipboard for setting them, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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