Clipboard

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's mutation potential is known. The description adds the dual-mode behavior (read vs. write) which is helpful, but it does not disclose any edge cases, such as handling of non-text clipboard content or device-specific limitations. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the two usage modes. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the return value when reading (the clipboard text), though that is reasonably implied.

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 description coverage is 100% – both text and device parameters have descriptions. The description's note about omitting text to read repeats the schema description exactly, adding no new information. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 reads or replaces the device clipboard, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the two modes based on the presence of the text parameter, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like mobile_get_foreground_app or mobile_list_elements_on_screen.

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 explicitly instructs when to set versus read the clipboard: 'Pass text to set the clipboard, omit it to read.' This gives clear context for both modes. While it does not mention alternative tools, there is no direct sibling for clipboard operations, so exclusion guidance is not needed.

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