Read clipboard

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description's safety profile is reinforced rather than duplicated. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: images/files yield no text, and clipboard contents may contain private data like passwords, so output should not be repeated beyond task needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides essential usage guidance, exclusions, edge cases, and a privacy caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key conditions, alternatives, non-text edge cases, and privacy implications. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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%, so the sole parameter max_chars is already fully documented, including default, maximum, and truncation note. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Read the plain text on the system clipboard.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly saying to prefer get_app_state, browser_snapshot, or screenshot for on-screen content and to use this tool for text that was deliberately copied.

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 concrete when-to-use examples: after press_key cmd+c / ctrl+c copies a selection, or when the user says they copied something. It also names alternatives and explicitly distinguishes on-screen reading from clipboard reading, and notes that images/files are reported as no text.

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